PRINCETON  •  NEW  JERSEY 


E  186  . P85  v.  9 
Wheelwright,  John 

1679. 

John  Wheelwright 


mmmm 


A  /s'  a'  A  >  .  A  '  •  ! 


f  M  ip  xw 

•  f  kw  >  ¥  If  f 


Hi 

mmjM 

MBDHEB 

gHB 

fflfll 

«| 

H 

MHB 

III 

§8 

■H| 

Iplpa 

lllj 

B 

■HB 

BHBpiM 

ff  ▼  1^1/ 

!  iy\fAf^/Af«  r^'A'iA! Ai  F  !aI  t  v  in 

<rrw% 

T  ia f  [A 

onj 

rW  ( 

P2ra 

»■  jfj^  c  ^W,”  1  >¥  VvT  yf^s2,^2 

WW 

iwwy 

THE 


^ubltcattons  of  tf)e  prince 


Eftablifhed  May  25th,  1858. 


John  Wheelwright. 


Boston: 

PRINTED  FOR  THE  SOCIETY, 
By  John  Wilson  and  Son. 

1876. 


TEN  COPIES,  LARGE 


PAPER. 


TWO  HUNDRED  COPIES,  SMALL  PAPER. 


PLATE  I. 


a 


OYm-tf 


aJd  Cy  pfayf*  ihxA  Q  'C*.Ca.nt.t»n»fyl£-  J^enn»x4.  0$  J,,?£^^_ 

ukcKg-  kc***&  h<*4+&  ^Je^Ldi  C\,j%-£c>  il&Ttn  UntlPc 

6p~  JjiCcxJjrx>^  H^A.£tL  ^c^rri  Uj^L  4~P {^'t'h^jcri  <3-  j4&jt  u&£~r*~C  s£*X~  of  'ZP<*fb>n~  ' 

.  fjtj^Cfrba  (ju-n  &  Co*p>f*>Ti  *j  &>x/I*w 

ivi$4jh?i  f  ***•  £**  #ffi  4/ m 

4  str  XL  — .  fl  ja*.  a/  /si  jfifMtr  M  i1-  a  (  ^  ^ 


Cccltl*-J  £  -JXen. I 

Js(ic  ^Ps/i  iw;.„  „  ^ 

ri  <t~£C  r/j  e 


<*  /(- 


r$~V*,€.  £j 


— <*s 


m  <*-«-  jU'&fi-'  lamdLf  n  >0* §  O  V  -pY - ~T 

frr)%$  v»erp  r»e~  £*u*-&^  th,  ®r&L~  ** *t*—-£*  **  rf*  j  j*^Jc'*L  '?**■<**£- 

I  -  !  ‘S.  i  ..  ^  fir  f^..  fJ?  /7-A*  -stf  i-  ,  t!  .C/JU  h  *Jr€7rf&  &-A,  ii4 


f/  si  iv*  <H*4  ^  It  f"fv  *r3PcL$£  Ct  <±  £ 

vx  to  -(-fZ*.  C?>c<-yy&*nj 

iriL  y*h*t*..  4&  -/'/t  M  <£.  £i**i  JClTM/  ' 

u-^Ln.  **  ivetpbd’.-^i,  4-g<a-_  a-  cf**-p  *y?« 

S fi „  **4'*£~~  S  rT^y  Ja, 


Q  oc. 

iccntTi.  JL  £0 


IAK4L- 


flitJ^l'K-k)  fit  /r*y  '(>‘*y  £  pf^u£- 


Jt*»J  Sjofafa^  J- 


W'4^'  }•*%£*»  *"' 


a***« 


t 

Q  -*'>'11' O'  Cl. 


fvtf* 


OLTltf  idntutll- 


fa  ^  C^rU 
Hrn<>tAw 


i  ;*  .  .  v\  •  . 

John  Wheelwright. 


HIS  WRITINGS,  INCLUDING  HIS  FAST-DAY  SERMON,  1637, 
AND  HIS  MERCURIUS  AMERICANUS,  1645;  WITH 
A  PAPER  UPON  THE  GENUINENESS  OF 
THE  INDIAN  DEED  OF  1629, 


AND  A 


MEMOIR 

By  CHARLES  H.  BELL,  A.M. 


/ 


33  0  si  1 0  n : 

PRINTED  FOR  THE  PRINCE  SOCIETY. 

1876. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1876,  by 
CHARLES  H.  BELL, 

In  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington. 


3EtJitor : 

CHARLES  H.  BELL,  A.M. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

Fac  Similes  of  the  Indian  Deeds  of  1638  to  Wheel¬ 


wright  and  others . Frontispiece. 

Preface  .  v 

Memoir  of  the  Rev.  John  Wheelwright .  1 

The  Wheelwright  Deed  of  1629;  was  it  spurious?  ...  79 

Copy  of  the  Wheelwright  Deed  of  1629 . 143 

Bibliography . 149 

Fast-day  Sermon,  1637 . 153 

Mercurius  Americanus . 18 1 

The  Will  of  John  Wheelwright . 229 

The  Prince  Society . 237 

Index . 247 


P  T  E.  n . 


r  ',zW/^  ?°) 

7  K 


*'&+<//*>  'U  ^t)\?  &  /fc+rtsO'XA?  n  &M  V^  y? 

Ujcx  ZyxJkA^r  <* 

'HtOoUHS  </t>  'Tt  tfrfh^m  '?°J  °T, 

^  **Cot*J  ■■***#*  ^/P«4p  yyj&  fcxflh  M&brxft  /?<&*%  tricaMM&.l 

<& (TKf^y  yT&fcfttA  nAAy  ylr&A-c 

^  Zctofof  W7iAfrwct$i 

f^AyA&9: 

^^ZZZ^'i-irpy>A~^  ^  Z  Z 

/  ■  yy  Q^%y&ic'-*Aj*A--&h  Z  Q7hC^ j/y^arifr' 

im^J  <vaeg£y9  Jt>  /ut4x&  ^Zy*^!ZhAd 

-di^6irri^Ac(  £?  y*znA: 

I  (^7<XjCI  CXTlXOfifr  ~7&  J^L'fst'Vy 

yovUfff  /  Am.  UJ-ishjlA&  ^ 

,  „  z 


w-Cp  77^\ 

’  ^vJ&6 


SiAfoW- 


^  Z-~$Z<x&. 


W7'-§d-&*\ /s-$  TjTfty 


CZ-^^' 


A f( *.**-<*-[?<> Z7 &  J. £u?. 
wW^*- 

^  $s*  C&rn^  ^J^I'<'*i-^Arlt- 


Jummixo  0<Jlti~ijn 
injan**  -rrtox-ef^jfn 


"P  LATE  nr. 


^J'fn’Jh  £~^CKl^p  uy*k~  ^bf*±  p*>*JUi 

Cmyyphrp&'  £ro  •*  <vm  f-  Ot  ^v  u  \4  ||^v  ^  ^  ^  t^>  «*-0- 

*«  i+cid*  ^L  tt'P'rv. 

„  .l^n«pTV  U^U**a-<3p £***&-  fb*+S*4i>^£^''**^  <£  C*r^eL  -£r^.£L. 

£ty>l4?  %<Xj  jp  jkjrjH-  /(>3J  * 

^  tt»l  QC%i*  l  fe,  ^ «-Ov*£-  y*»k>  -f:Ck"  4t>*u-  C4+V^&  Co t*-*i*0 1  -  — _  _  . - - 

f°-*  t£*fr*-e+<£ pn*  ***&  ^ 

m  *  xpv6.  io~  * 

*crr'jf«  U~J  fl9"  u  J& 


'»  ott 


*-£  ^ 


** 


t£ 


&«~&£  %*&££ 


PREFACE. 


HE  editor  ventures  to  hope  that  the  members 
of  the  Prince  Society  will  find  this  volume, 
which  contains  documents  not  generally  accef- 
fible  even  to  fcholars,  a  ufeful  contribution  to 
an  important  and  interefting  chapter  of  our 
early  hiftory.  The  Memoir  has  been  prepared  from  mate¬ 
rials,  many  of  them  exifting  only  in  manufcript,  collected 
from  all  known  fources  of  information  on  the  fubjedl  in 
this  country ;  fupplemented  by  the  fruits  of  fuch  inquiry  in 
England  as  time  and  opportunity  allowed.  Though  necef- 
farily  meagre,  it  is  the  only  approach  to  a  complete 
biography  of  Wheelwright  yet  written ;  and  will  enable 
the  hifiorical  ftudent,  it  is  confidently  hoped,  to  form  a 
jufter  eftimate  of  the  man  and  the  influences  by  which  he 
was  furrounded  here,  than  any  other  publifhed  account. 
The  author  of  the  Memoir  has  not  withheld  his  opinions, 
where  the  expreffion  of  them  feemed  proper.  Though  they 
do  not  in  all  refpedts  agree  with  thofe  of  fome  writers 
who  have  treated  of  the  fame  fubjedls,  yet  they  have  been 

formed 


VI 


formed  from  undifputed  fadts,  upon  full  confideration,  and 
without  known  prejudice;  and  they  are  fubmitted  as  fully 
fuftained  by  the  hiftorical  evidence. 

A  half-century  has  paffed  fince  the  Hon.  James  Savage 
firft  queftioned  the  genuinenefs  of  the  Wheelwright  deed  of 
1629.  In  each  edition  of  Winthrop’s  Hiftory  of  New  Eng¬ 
land  iffued  under  his  fupervifion,  he  introduced  an  elaborate 
argument  to  prove  the  deed  fpurious ;  and  in  his  Genea¬ 
logical  Dictionary  he  declared  his  convidtion  to  the  fame 
effedt.  Some  other  hiftorical  writers  expreffed  the  fame 
views;  notably  John  Farmer,  Efq.,  in  his  edition  of  Bel¬ 
knap’s  New  Hampfhire,  in  1831,  and  the  Rev.  Dr.  J.  M. 
Whiton,  in  his  Sketches  of  the  Hiftory  of  the  State,  in 
1834. 

Other  gentlemen,  converfant  with  the  early  affairs  of  this 
region,  have  entertained  a  different  opinion.  To  fay  nothing 
of  Governor  William  Plumer  and  Nathaniel  Adams,  Efq., 
both  of  whom  controverted  the  pofitions  of  Mr.  Savage, 
Samuel  G.  Drake,  Efq.,  always  retained  full  faith  in  the 
Wheelwright  purchafe,  and  afferted  it  repeatedly  in  his 
publifhed  writings ;  and  the  Hon.  Chandler  E.  Potter  not 
only  declared,  in  his  Hiftory  of  Manchefter,  N.H.,  his  un- 
hefitating  belief  that  the  deed  was  genuine,  but  projedted 
and  nearly  completed  a  detailed  reply  to  the  arguments  of 
Mr.  Savage  upon  the  fubjedfc.  It  is  only  proper  to  fay  that 
the  grounds  on  which  Colonel  Potter  contended  for  the 
truthfulnefs  of  the  deed  were,  in  almoft  all  particulars,  effen- 
tially  different  from  thofe  here  advanced. 

Within  a  few  years  the  fubjedl  has  been  refumed  by  the 
Rev.  John  A.  Vinton  in  a  paper  read  before  the  New  Eng¬ 
land 


•  • 


Vll 

land  Hiftoric,  Genealogical  Society,  and  by  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Nathaniel  Bouton  in  a  difquifition  which  has  been  pro¬ 
nounced  before  that  and  other  kindred  affociations,  —  each 
taking  ground  againd  the  genuinenefs  of  the  Wheelwright 
deed ;  and  the  latter,  at  lead,  producing  fome  new  confid- 
erations  in  fupport  of  his  opinion. 

A  monograph  concerning  Wheelwright  would  be  ob- 
vioufly  imperfect  without  a  reference  to  this  queftion,  which 
has  occupied  the  attention,  and  divided  the  opinions,  of 
able  hidorical  inquirers.  An  attempt  is  made  in  this  vol¬ 
ume  to  date  the  argument  in  fupport  of  the  difputed  deed 
fully,  which  has  never  before  been  done,  and  fairly,  fo  as  to 
guard  the  reader  againd  hady  concludons.  The  paper 
here  given  was  read  before  the  New  England  Hidoric, 
Genealogical  Society,  upon  the  invitation  of  their  Com¬ 
mittee  ;  and  the  fact  that  it  appears  fubdantially  in  the  form 
in  which  it  was  delivered  will  explain  fome  of  its  peculiar¬ 
ities  of  dyle. 

The  editor  of  this  volume  takes  great  pleafure  in  ac¬ 
knowledging  the  courtefy  and  kindnefs  with  which  his 
applications  for  information  and  afddance  have  uniformly 
been  met.  He  is  efpecially  indebted  to  the  Rev.  Edmund 
F.  Slafter  for  many  valuable  fuggedions,  and  for  numerous 
fervices  which  have  materially  lightened  the  editorial  talk ; 
to  J.  Wingate  Thornton,  Efq.,  for  the  generous  ufe  of  rare 
volumes  from  his  choice  collection  of  early  New  England 
hidory;  to  John  Langdon  Sibley,  Efq.,  for  the  privilege  of 
tranfcribing  and  afterwards  verifying  the  printed  copy  of 
Mercurius  Americanus,  a  work  of  fuch  rarity  that  it  is 

not  to  be  found  in  any  New  England  library  except  thofe 

•  * 

of 


Vlll 


of  Harvard  Univerfity  and  of  the  late  Hon.  George  Brin- 
ley ;  to  David  Puldfer,  Efq.,  for  copies  from  the  Maffa- 
chufetts  Archives,  and  for  the  exercife  of  his  unfurpaffed 
knowledge  of  antique  chirography  in  affuring  the  accuracy 
of  the  reprint  of  the  Fad-day  Sermon  ;  to  John  Ward  Dean, 
Efq.,  and  Samuel  F.  Haven,  Efq.,  for  defirable  information 
and  ufeful  fuggeftions ;  to  Mrs.  J.  Farmer  of  Hingham  for 
kindly  allowing  the  ufe  of  the  original  deeds  of  1638  for  the 
purpofe  of  making  facsimiles ;  and  to  the  Maffachufetts 
Hiftorical  Society,  the  Congregational  Library,  and  the 
New  England  Hidoric,  Genealogical  Society,  for  the  oppor¬ 
tunity  of  confulting  books  and  manufcripts. 

This  record  cannot  be  clofed  without  a  recognition  of  the 
editor’s  obligations  to  the  late  Samuel  G.  Drake,  Efq.,  the 
firft  Prefident  of  the  Society  under  whofe  aufpices  this 
volume  is  produced.  A  defcendant  from  Wheelwright  and 
an  earned  ftudent  of  his  times,  Mr.  Drake,  though  a  model 
of  indudry,  was  always  found  ready,  upon  the  editor’s  fre¬ 
quent  applications,  to  impart  from  the  dores  of  his  own 
knowledge,  to  confult  the  authorities  in  his  familiar  library, 
and  to  fugged  pofdble  avenues  for  the  acquidtion  of  all 
needed  information.  His  kind  aid  and  encouragement  will 
ever  be  held  in  grateful  remembrance. 

Exeter,  New  Hampshire, 

February  29,  1876. 


/ 


MEMOIR 

OF  THE 

REVEREND  JOHN  WHEELWRIGHT. 


HE  birthplace  of  John  Wheelwright  was  in  that 
part  of  Lincolnfhire  known  as  the  fens,  on  the 
eaftern  coaffc  of  England.  The  market  town 
of  Alford,  in  that  county,  fituated  twenty-four 
miles  from  the  city  of  Bolton,  and  about  ten 
from  the  fea,  is  the  centre  of  a  duller  of  hamlets,  among 
which  are  thofe  of  Saleby,  Mumby,  and  Bilfby.  John’ 
Wheelwright  was  probably  born  at  Saleby,  where  his  father, 
Robert  Wheelwright,  lived,  and  died  in  1612.  John’s 
grandfather,  who  bore  alfo  the  name  of  John,  died  in 
Mumby  the  year  before  the  death  of  Robert. 

The  exad  date  of  John  Wheelwright’s  birth  has  not  been 
afcertained ;  circumltances  render  it  probable  that  it  was  in 
the  early  part  of  the  year  1592.1  Little  is  known  of  his 
anceftors,  except  that  they  belonged  to  the  great  middle 
*  clafs 

1  Col.  Jofeph  L.  Chefter,  in  21  New  Regifter,  where  feveral  fa<5ts  given  in 
England  Hiftorical  and  Genealogical  the  text  were  firft  publifhed. 


2 


Memoir  of 

clafs  of  fociety  which  gave  to  our  country  fo  large  a  propor¬ 
tion  of  her  colonifts  of  enterprife  and  fterling  worth.  John’s 
father  was  a  landholder,  and  poffeffed  fufficient  means  to 
enable  him  to  give  his  fon  a  thorough  education,  and  we 
may  fafely  affume  that  the  boy  exhibited  bright  parts,  and  a 
defire  for  knowledge.2  At  about  the  age  of  eighteen  he 
was  matriculated  at  the  Univerfity  of  Cambridge. 

No  records  of  his  college  life  have  come  down  to  us,  but 
a  gleam  of  light  is  thrown  upon  fome  of  his  youthful  char- 
adteriftics  by  a  reported  remark  of  no  lefs  a  perfonage  than 
Oliver  Cromwell,  who  was  his  fellow-collegian.  “  I  remember 
the  time,”  faid  the  Lord  Protedlor,  “  when  I  was  more  afraid 
of  meeting  Wheelwright  at  foot-ball,  than  I  have  been  fince 
of  meeting  an  army  in  the  field,  for  I  was  infallibly  fure  of 
being  tripped  up  by  him.”  To  this  may  be  added  the  ftate- 
ment  of  Cotton  Mather,  that  he  had  heard  that  “  when 
Wheelwright  was  a  young  fpark  at  the  Univerfity,  he  was 
noted  for  a  more  than  ordinary  firoke  at  wreftling.” 3  From 
this  evidence  it  may  be  gathered  that  young  Wheelwright 
was  of  vigorous  bodily  conftitution,  addidted  to  athletic  exer- 
cifes,  and  not  lacking  in  fpirit  or  refolution. 

He  received  at  Sidney  College  his  Bachelor’s  degree  in 
1614,  and  that  of  Matter  of  Arts  four  years  later.4  For 
feveral  years  after  he  left  the  Univerfity  we  have  no  definite 
information  where  or  how  his  time  was  fpent ;  but  as  he  had 
fallen  heir  to  fome  landed  property  in  Lincolnfhire  on  the 
death  of  his  father,  and  alfo  adminiftered  on  his  efiate,  it  is 

probable 

2  1  Sprague’s  American  Pulpit,  83.  4  8  Mass.  Hift.  Collections  (3d  se- 

3  3  Belknap’s  Hift.  New  Hampftiire,  ries),  248. 

App’x  No.  1. 


3 


Wheelwright . 


probable  that  he  found  employment  there.  Another  attrac¬ 
tion  would  naturally  have  drawn  him  thither ;  he  was  paying 
his  addreffes  to  Marie  Storre,  his  future  wife,  a  daughter  of 
the  Rev.  Thomas  Storre,  vicar  of  Bilfby.  Some  portion  of 
his  time  he  alfo  employed  in  preparing  himfelf  for  taking 
holy  orders.  On  the  eighth  of  November,  1621,  he  was 
married,  and  on  the  ninth  of  April,  1623,  after  the  death  of 
his  father-in-law,  was  indudted,  as  his  fucceffor,  into  the 
vicarage  of  Bilfby.5 

Thus  educated,  and  permanently  eftablifhed  in  his  chofen 
profeffion,  among  his  friends  and  kindred,  a  hufband  and 
foon  a  father,  if  Wheelwright  had  been  a  man  of  lefs  con- 
fcience  and  courage  he  would  have  been  content  with  his 
lot,  which  promifed  him  a  life  of  refpedlability  and  eafe. 
But  he  lived  in  an  era  of  free  inquiry  into  the  authority  of  the 
dogmas  and  ordinances  of  his  church.  A  widely-extended 
difpofition  was  manifefted  among  clergy  and  laity  to  re- 
fufe  obedience  to  certain  of  the  ecclefiaftical  requirements, 
upon  the  ground  that  they  favored  of  papiftry,  and  were 
without  warrant  in  Scripture.  Attempts  to  enforce  compli¬ 
ance  ferved  only  to  confirm  the  recufants  in  their  refiftance. 
Many  of  the  ableft  and  moil  confcientious  men  of  the  time 
were  thus  driven  from  the  Englifli  church  into  the  various 
forms  of  diffent.  To  thefe  non-conformifts  of  all  fhades  of 
opinion  the  generic  name  of  Puritans  was  applied,  at  firft 
in  derifion,  but  afterwards  as  a  grave,  hiftoric  defignation. 

It  was  not  in  the  nature  of  Wheelwright  to  keep  aloof  from 
the  fubjedts  which  were  fo  deeply  agitating  the  religious 

community. 

5  21  N.  E.  Hift.  and  Gen.  Regifter,  364. 


4 


Memoir  of 

community.  His  convidlions  impelled  him  into  the  Puritan 
ranks,  and  as  he  was  of  too  frank  and  independent  a  fpirit 
to  leave  his  pofition  in  doubt,  he  unqueffionably  proclaimed 
his  fentiments  without  referve.  But  he  muff  have  felt  that 
he  was  thenceforth  liable  at  any  hour  to  be  oufted  from  his 
living  and  his  home.  He  continually  faw  around  him  others 
quitting  the  land  of  their  nativity,  becaufe  of  opinions  fimilar 
to  his  own,  to  feek  refuge  on  foreign  fhores.  The  queftion 
could  not  have  failed  to  prefent  itfelf  frequently  to  his  mind 
what  courfe  he  fliould  purfue  in  the  not  improbable  event 
of  his  being  driven  to  leave  England. 

Whether  he  adlually  took  any  fteps  toward  providing 
himfelf  a  new  home  beyond  the  fea  there  is  no  abfolute 
certainty.  But  for  above  a  century  all  our  hiftory  reprefented 
that  he  made  a  purchafe  of  American  lands,  in  1629,  from 
Paffaconaway  and  other  Indian  fagamores,  comprifing 
more  than  an  entire  county  in  the  prefent  State  of  New 
Hampfhire.6  If  the  flatement  is  true,  he  muft  have  left  his 
parochial  charge  in  England  and  croffed  the  Atlantic,  to 
accomplifh  the  tranfaftion.  In  recent  years  it  has  b£en 
argued  that  no  fuch  purchafe  was  made,  and  that  the  deed 
purporting  to  convey  the  lands  was  a  forgery  of  later  date 
and  by  other  hands.  Without  prefuming  to  pronounce 
pofitively  upon  the  queftion  in  the  prefent  defective  date  of 
the  evidence,  it  may  well  be  doubted  if  the  new-found  argu¬ 
ments  are  fufficient  to  outweigh  the  authority  of  the  old 
hiftory.  Not  to-  interrupt  the  progrefs  of  our  narrative, 

however, 

G  For  the  authorities  upon  this  fub-  upon  the  Wheelwright  deed  of  1629, 
jedt,  the  reader  is  referred  to  the  paper  infra. 


IVheelwright . 


5 


however,  the  difcuffion  of  this  point  has  been  referved  for  a 
fupplementary  chapter. 

Wheelwright  held  the  vicarage  of  Bilfby  about  ten  years, 
and  was  a  faithful  and  ufeful  minifter.  “  He  was  inftru- 
mental  in  the  converfion  of  many  fouls,”  fays  Brook,  “  and 
highly  efteemed  among  ferious  Chriftians.”  7  The  fragmen¬ 
tary  parochial  records  which  have  come  down  to  us  afford 
but  fcanty  information  concerning  him  during  this  period. 
His  infant  fon  William  died  in  1627  ;  his  daughter  Catharine 
was  baptized  in  1628,  and  his  daughter  Mary  was  baptized 
and  died  in  1632.  The  tranfcripts  of  the  Bilfby  records 
were  figned  by  him  as  late  as  1631,  thus  fhowing  that  his 
parochial  charge  continued  till  that  date.  In  January,  1633, 
his  fucceffor  was  induCted,  though  according  to  the  record 
Wheelwright  had  neither  refigned  nor  been  removed ; 
apparently  fome  caufe  exifted  which  warranted  his  ecclefi- 
aftical  fuperior  in  treating  the  vicarage  as  vacant.8  Whether 
this  was  owing  to  his  Puritanical  views,  we  have  no  means 
of  afcertaining ;  but  it  is  certain  that  either  then,  or  fhortly 
afterwards,  Wheelwright  was  filenced  for  non-conformity.9 

For  the  fucceeding  three  years  he  appears  to  have  had 
no  fixed  abode.  For  a  time  he  lived  privately  near  Lincoln ; 
and  he  is  heard  of  in  the  neighborhood  of  Anderby,  hard  by 
his  old  home  in  Lincolnfhire.  Though  forbidden  to  exercife 
his  clerical  functions,  he  apparently  made  no  fecret  of  his 

religious  convictions.  He  became  recognized  as  a  leading 

man 


7  3  Lives  of  the  Puritans,  472. 

8  The  language  of  the  mandate  is, 

“  jam  l1  tie  et  de  jure  vac  an?1 


9  Lives  of  the  Puritans,  ubi ftijra. 


6 


Memoir  of 


man  in  the  Puritan  party,  and  miniftered  to  their  fpiritual 
wants  in  a  private  way.  During  this  period  he  made  the 
acquaintance  of  a  perfon  who  was  fhortly  after  to  experience, 
like  himfelf,  the  hardships  of  a  frontier  life  in  the  weftern 
world,  and  who,  whatever  the  errors  of  his  earlier  years,10 
acquired  an  honored  and  revered  name,  at  a  later  period,  in 
the  land  of  his  birth.  Hanferd  Knollys,  then  a  young  man, 
attracted  by  the  high  repute  of  Wheelwright  among  his 
non-conformiffc  brethren,  vifited  him,  and,  after  repeated 
conferences  with  him,  felt  conftrained  to  adopt  fome  of  his 
religious  views.11 

There  can  be  little  doubt  that  Wheelwright  had  been  for 
fome  time  contemplating  emigration ;  and  in  the  beginning 
of  April,  1636,  he  embarked  for  New  England.  The  wife 
of  his  youth  had  died,  we  know  not  how  long  before,  and 
left  him  the  care  of  young  children,  and  he  had  again 
married.  His  fecond  wife  was  Mary,  daughter  of  Edward 
Hutchinfon,  of  Alford  ; 12  and  with  her  and  his  five  children 
he  landed  at  Bofton,  in  the  Maffachufetts  Bay,  on  the  twenty- 
fixth  of  May,  1636.  He  did  not  find  himfelf  abfolutely  a 

ftranger 


10  Of  the  moft  ferious  delinquency 
imputed  to  Knollys,  there  is  apparently 
no  other  evidence  than  hearfay.  See 
5  New  Hamp.  Hift.  Soc.  Collections, 
175-7. 

u  Autobiography  of  Knollys,  18. 
Drake’s  Hift.  Bofton,  220,  n. 

12  Ignorance  of  Wheelwright’s  fec¬ 
ond  marriage  has  led  feveral  writers  to 
wonder  how  he  could  have  been  a 
brother-in-law  of  Mrs.  Hutchinfon. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  about  the  fact, 
however.  Wheelwright’s  will  fhows  that 
he  was  twice  married  ;  and,  as  we  have 


the  beft  reafon  for  believing  that  he  did 
not  remarry  after  his  fettlement  in  this 
country,  he  muft  have  done  fo  before 
his  emigration.  The  name  of  his  fec¬ 
ond  wife  was  Mary,  and  that  fhe  was  a 
Hutchinfon,  is  proved  by  the  expref- 
fions,  “brother”  and  “lifter,”  always 
ufed  by  both  families  in  referring  to 
each  other.  Moreover,  the  elder  Mrs. 
Hutchinfon  accompanied  Mrs.  Wheel¬ 
wright  to  Exeter  and  Wells,  which,  as 
fhe  had  other  children  in  this  country, 
fhe  would  never  have  done,  unlefs  the 
latter  had  been  her  daughter. 


7 


Wheelwright. 


ftrange  r  in  a  ftrange  land.  The  Rev.  John  Cotton,  teacher 
of  the  church,  he  knew  well  by  repute,  and  probably  by 
perfonal  acquaintance,  in  the  old  country;  and  Wheelwright’s 
brother-in-law,  William  Hutchinfon,  with  his  wife  Anne,  who 
was  foon  to  become  one  of  the  mod;  noted  characters  in  the 
Bay,  had  been  refident  in  Bofton  about  two  years.  On  the 
1 2th  of  June,  1636,  Wheelwright,  with  his  wife,  was  admitted 
to  the  church,  and  foon  became  highly  efteemed,  acquiring 
the  confidence  and  fupport  of  many  of  the  moft  confiderable 
inhabitants  of  the  colony. 

Mrs.  Anne  Hutchinfon  was  a  woman  of  remarkable  force 
of  character,  intellectual  power,  and  acquirements,  as  well  as 
of  unaffeCted  piety.  As  a  nurfe  of  the  fick,  efpecially  in 
the  ailments  peculiar  to  her  fex,  fhe  was  fingularly  fkilful, 
and  cheerfully  rendered  gratuitous  fervice  to  all  who  were 
in  need ;  fo  that  in  the  infant  fettlement,  where  few  means 
of  alleviating  fuffering  were  to  be  found,  it  is  not  ftrange 
that  fhe  came  to  be  efteemed  as  little  lefs  than  a  minifter- 
ing  angel.  In  religion  fhe  was  an  enthufiaft,  and  on  points 
of  fpeculative  doCtrine  ran  off  into  ideas  widely  variant  from 
thofe  generally  entertained  in  the  Maffachufetts  Bay.  She 
held  weekly  meetings  of  the  fitters  of  the  church  at  her 
houfe,  and  difcuffed  with  them  the  fubjeCts  of  the  minifters’ 
fermons.  On  thefe  occafions  Mrs.  Hutchinfon  proclaimed 
and  advocated  her  own  peculiar  tenets,  and  criticifed  thofe 
of  the  clergy,  from  which  fhe  diffented.  It  is  reported  that 
flie  claimed  that  thofe  whofe  opinions  accorded  with  her 
own  were  under  “  a  covenant  of  faith,”  while  fhe  pronounced 
all  the  minifters  of  the  Bay,  except  Cotton,  whofe  teachings 

fhe 


8 


Memoir  of 


file  had  enjoyed  in  old  England,  and  her  brother-in-law 
Wheelwright,  to  be  under  “a  covenant  of  works;”13  an  in¬ 
vidious  diftinftion,  not  calculated  to  conciliate  the  perfons 
embraced  in  the  latter  category. 

It  is  not  deemed  neceffary  or  ufeful  in  this  fketch  to  enter 
into  a  detailed  explanation  of  the  religious  diffenfions  of 
that  period.14  Their  theological  polemics,  indeed,  paffed  all 
modern  underftanding.  Some  recent  writers  have  regarded 
them  as  mere  jargon ;  differences  of  words  without  ideas ; 
while  others  have  gone  to  the  oppofite  extreme  of  profeffmg 
to  fee  a  higher  meaning  in  them  than  the  language  employed 
naturally  imports.  The  fimple  fadl  is  that  metaphyfical 
difcuffion,  of  the  leaf!  profitable  kind,  was  the  fafhion  of  the 
time,  and  was  adapted  to  the  tafte  of  the  religious  community. 
And  there  feems  no  reafon  for  fuppofmg  that  the  difputation 
in  the  prefent  inftance  poffeffed  any  peculiar  efoteric  fignifi- 
cance.  An  examination  of  the  Faft-day  fermon,  and  of 
“  Mercurius  Americanus,”  in  the  prefent  volume,  will  con¬ 
vince  the  reader  how  much  that  was  merely  fpeculative  and 
how  little  that  was  capable  of  any  practical  application, 
entered  into  the  religious  controverfies  of  the  period. 

Thofe 


13  If  Mrs.  Hutchinfon  adtually  made 
this  remark,  it  would  not  be  juft  to  af- 
fume  that  Wheelwright  was  willing  to 
indorfe  it.  The  bandying  of  epithets 
is  a  branch  of  polemics  in  which  no  dif- 
putant  ought  to  be  held  refponftble  for 
another’s  words. 

14  Winthrop  fays  that  Mrs.  Hutchin¬ 
fon  “  brought  over  with  her  two  dan¬ 
gerous  errors  :  i .  That  the  perfon  of 
the  Holy  Ghoft  dwells  in  a  juftified  per¬ 
fon  ;  2.  That  no  fandlification  can  help 
to  evidence  to  us  our  juftification.” 


He  adds  that  ‘‘from  thefe  two  grew 
many  branches.”  It  was  the  “branch¬ 
es,”  in  other  words,  the  inferences, 
which  her  opponents  chofe  to  draw 
from  her  avowed  dodtrines,  that  formed 
the  chief  ground  of  contention  in  the 
church  and  the  community.  It  is 
doubtful  if  any  perfons  could  have 
been  found  in  the  country  who  held 
a  quarter  part  of  the  “erroneous  opin¬ 
ions  ”  condemned  by  the  Cambridge 
Synod. 


9 


Wheelwright . 


Thofe  who  differed  from  Mrs.  Hutchinfon  and  her  adher¬ 
ents  applied  to  them  the  term  “  Antinomians ; 15  to  which 
they  retorted  by  ftyling  the  others  “  Legalifts.”  Wheelwright 
had  been  but  few  months  in  the  country  before  he  came  to 
be  confidered  the  champion  of  the  Antinomian  party,  though 
he  never  embraced  the  extreme  views  of  Mrs.  Hutchinfon.16 
Cotton  alfo  for  a  time  Tided  with  them,  but  was  at  length 
overborne  by  the  oppofition  of  his  clerical  brethren.  In 
the  Bofton  church  were  two  men  of  learning,  ability,  and 
commanding  pofition,  who  fteadily  oppofed  the  Antinomian 
herefy,  —  the  Rev.  John  Wilfon,  the  paftor,  and  John  Win- 
throp,  one  of  the  principal  founders  of  the  colony,  and  many 
years  its  governor ;  the  latter  fingularly  well  qualified  to  deal 
with  a  difficulty  that  demanded  the  exercife  alike  of  theo¬ 
logical  learning,  prudence,  and  addrefs. 

It  is  problematical  whether  the  enthufiaftic  notions  dif- 
feminated  by  Mrs.  Hutchinfon  would  not  have  been  fuffered 
to  die  a  natural  death,  as  they  would,  probably,  have  speedily 
done,  if  unnoticed  and  unrefifted,  inftead  of  being  exalted 
into  matter  of  importance  by  formal  oppofition,  had  not 
the  governor  of  the  colony,  Henry  Vane,  been  implicated 
in  them.  Vane  was  the  heir  of  an  ariftocratic  houfe  in  Eng¬ 
land,  who  had  embraced  the  religipus  views  of  the  Puri¬ 
tans,  and  in  confequence  thereof  had  come  over,  about  a  year 
before  this  time,  to  New  England.  He  was  able,  well  edu¬ 
cated,  and  confcientious ;  and  admiration  for  his  character, 

not 

15  By  fome  writers  they  are  alfo  16  i  Savage’s  Winthrop,  *201.  Cot- 
called  “  Familifts,”  though  improperly,  ton’s  Way  of  the  Congregational 
as  would  appear  from  the  definition  of  Churches  Cleared,  60.  1  Felt’s  Ec- 

the  word.  clef.  Hift.  of  New  England,  349. 


I  o  Memoir  of 

not  lefs  than  his  high  birth,  had  induced  the  freemen  of 
Maffachufetts  to  eledl  him  their  governor,  though  yet  but 
twenty-four  years  of  age.  It  is  not  ft  range  that  the  eleva¬ 
tion  to  the  chief  magiftracy  of  a  mere  youth,  juft  arrived  in 
the  colony,  with  no  ties  to  bind  him  permanently  to  her 
interefts,  fhould  have  been  viewed  with  jealoufy  and  appre- 
herifion  by  the  gentlemen  of  mature  years,  who  had  em¬ 
barked  their  lives  and  fortunes  in  founding  the  fettlement 
of  the  Maffachufetts  Bay.  And  while  there  is  no  doubt  that 
they  confidered  his  adoption  of  the  extravagant  tenets  of 
Mrs.  Hutchinfon  as  proof  of  a  difpofition  unfitted  to  exer- 
cife  the  duties  of  a  chief  ruler  over  the  colony,  it  is  equally 
clear  that  they  recognized  with  fatisfadfion  the  fadf  that  it 
afforded  them  a  vantage-ground  for  difpoffeffmg  him  of  the 
reins  of  power.  They  knew  that  the  vaft  influence  which 
at  that  day  belonged  to  the  clerical  calling  could  eaflly  be 
turned,  in  all  the  churches  outflde  of  Boflon,  againfl:  the 
fedtaries  who  fpoke  flightingly  of  the  great  body  of  that 
profefflon,  and  was  fufflcient  to  aroufe  fuch  a  florm  of  oppo- 
fltion  among  the  people  as  would  fweep  Vane  and  all  the 
party  with  which  he  was  identified  from  every  place  of 
authority.  And  perhaps  it  could  hardly  have  been  antici¬ 
pated  at  that  time  that  the  adoption  of  this  courfe  would 
awaken  in  the  colony  a  fpirit  which  would  not  down  at  the 
bidding  of  the  civil  or  eccleflaflical  authority,  but  could  only 
be  crufhed  out  by  the  firong  hand. 

The  clergy  were  early  in  the  field.  On  the  twenty-fifth 
of  Odtober,  1636,  four  days  after  the  firfi;  mention  of  the 
Hutchinfon  fchifm  by  Winthrop  in  his  Journal,  the  word 

had 


M 


Wheelwright . 


had  been  paffed  through  the  ranks  of  the  minifters,  and 
they  affembled  in  full  conclave  in  Bofton,  to  concert  meaf- 
ures  for  dealing  with  the  nafcent  herefy.17  Their  meeting 
was  flirewdly  timed  in  the  feffion  of  the  General  Court ;  for 
the  civil  power  was  alfo  to  be  invoked,  and  who  fo  compe¬ 
tent  to  fhape  the  views  of  the  legiflators  as  their  fpiritual 
guides  ?  The  minifters  held  an  interview  with  Wheelwright 
and  Cotton,  both  of  whom  gave  them  apparent  fatisfadfion 
refpedting  their  religious  pofitions.  What  meafures  were 
adopted  at  the  meeting  did  not  tranfpire. 

About  the  fame  time,  fome  members  of  the  Bofton 
church,  fympathizers  with  Mrs.  Hutchinfon,  brought  for¬ 
ward  a  propofal  to  have  Wheelwright  fettled  over  them  as 
a  fecond  teacher,  in  conjunction  with  Wilfon  and  Cotton.18 
To  this  plan  Winthrop  objedted, —  that  the  church  was 
already  well  fupplied  with  able  minifters,  and  that  Wheel¬ 
wright  had  promulgated  unfound  dodlrines.  Governor 
Vane  made  fome  remarks  in  reply,  in  defence  of  Wheel¬ 
wright,  and  Wheelwright  himfelf  explained  the  occafion  of 
his  expreffmg  the  views  objedted  to.  Winthrop  rejoined 
that,  though  he  himfelf  might  probably  agree  with  Wheel¬ 
wright,  and  “  thought  reverendly  ”  of  his  talents  and  piety, 
and  could  be  content  to  live  under  his  miniftry,  yet,  as  he 
was  “  apt  to  raife  doubtful  difputations,  he  could  not  con- 
fent  to  choofe  him  to  that  place.”  The  friends  of  Wheel¬ 
wright 

17  i  Sav.  Winthrop,  *201.  erally  on  Winthrop’s  Journal  and  the 

18  To  avoid  the  neceffity  of  frequent  Short  Story  of  the  Rife,  Reign,  and 
notes,  it  may  be  ftated,  once  for  all,  Ruin  of  the  Antinomians,  &c.  In 
that  the  account  of  the  Antinomian  cafes  where  other  authorities  are  relied 
controverfy  and  proceedings  againft  upon,  they  are  defignated. 
Wheelwright,  here  given,  is  bafed  gen- 


12 


Memoir  of 

wright  preffed  the  matter  no  farther ;  but,  as  feveral  of  the 
Bofton  communion  were  defirous  to  form  a  church  at  Mount 
Wollafton,  where  they  refided  and  cultivated  farms,  it  was 
voted,  without  objection,  upon  their  application,  that  Wheel¬ 
wright  be  affigned  to  them  as  their  preacher.1  He  at  once 
commenced  his  paftoral  labors  at  that  place,  afterwards 
called  Braintree,  now  Quincy,  eight  or  nine  miles  foutherly 
from  Bofton. 

It  feems  to  have  been  fyftematically  arranged  that  from 
this  time  forward  the  theological  differences  in  the  Bofton 
church  fhould  never  be  fuffered  to  dumber.  Difcuffions 
were  moved,  in  oral  and  written  form,  at  brief  intervals,  in 
which  the  reprefentatives  of  what  may  be  called  the  Win- 
throp  and  Vane  parties  rekindled  their  oppofition ;  there 
were  repeated  interpofitions  of  the  great  body  of  the  clergy; 
while  Mrs.  Hutchinfon  continued  to  hold  her  ledtures,  which 
were  more  fully  attended  than  ever.  The  refult  was  that, 
in  the  courfe  of  a  few  months,  all  the  members  of  the 
Bofton  church,  except  two  or  three  beftde  Wilfon  and  Win- 
throp,  had  either  become  tinctured  with  the  opinions  of 
Mrs.  Hutchinfon,  or  at  leaft  had  made  up  their  minds  to 
ftand  by  her  and  her  friends  againft  perfecution.19  When  it 
is  remembered  that  at  the  time  Wheelwright  was  propofed 
as  a  teacher  of  that  church,  the  party  to  which  he  belonged 
was  not  ftrong  enough  to  carry  the  projedt,  this  change  of 

fentime  nts 

19  Cotton  denies  the  ftatement  of  fence  of  erroneous  perfons,  another  to 
Baylie,  in  his  DilTuafive  from  the  Er-  fpeak  in  defence  of  errors.  Multitudes 
rors  of  the  Time,  that  Bofton  was  fo  there  were  that  thought  well  of  the  per- 
far  infected  with  Antinomianifm  “  that  fons,  who  knew  nothing  of  their  er- 
few  there  were  untainted.”  “  It  is  one  rors,”  &c.  —  Cotton'1  s  Way ,  87. 
thing,”  fays  Cotton,  “  to  fpeak  in  the  de- 


13 


Wheelwright. 


fentiments  well  illudrates  the  effect  of  oppofition  to  a  new 
religious  dogma.  The  traveller  in  the  fable  only  hugged 
more  clofely  the  cloak  which  the  wind  drove  to  wred  from 
him. 

So  far  as  appears,  Wheelwright  difcharged  his  paftoral 
duties  faithfully  and  acceptably  at  Mount  Wolladon.  Yet  he 
was  regarded  as  one  of  the  foremod  members  of  the  Anti- 
nomian  party,  and  was  evidently  marked  to  be  made  an  ex¬ 
ample  of  by  the  powerful  combination  which  was  determined 
upon  its  downfall.  On  the  nineteenth 20  of  January,  1636-7, 
nearly  three  months  after  he  had  been  affigned  to  the  charge 
of  the  congregation  at  Mount  Wollafton,  a  general  Faft 
was  kept  throughout  the  colony,  on  account  of  various 
calamities  abroad  and  at  home,  among  the  latter  being  the 
diffenfions  in  the  churches.  On  this  occafion  Wheelwright 
preached  a  ferrnon  in  Bofton,21  which  was  made  the  occafion 
of  extraordinary  and  harfh  proceedings  againft  him,  on  which 
account,  as  well  as  becaufe  it  is  one  of  his  few  furviving  pro¬ 
ductions,  it  is  included  in  this  volume. 

RefpeCting  this  difcourfe  divers  opinions  have  been  ex- 
preffed  by  later  writers.  While  fome,  efpecially  laymen, 
have  been  unable  to  difcover  in  it  any  thing  threatening,  or 
encouraging  injury  to  the  date,  others,  and  notably  clergy¬ 
men  accepting  the  religious  fydem  of  the  Puritans,  have 
regarded  it  as  cenfurable  and  tending  to  mifchief.  The 

truth 

20  Winthrop  ftates  this,  under  date  of  21  i  Felt’s  Eccl.  Hift.  269.  Short 
the  20th  ;  the  copy  of  the  fermon  in  the  Story,  &c.  52,  paragraph  5.  1  Neal’s 

fecretary’s  office  gives  the  16th  as  the  Hift.  New  England  (2d  ed.),  186. 
day  of  its  delivery,  as  does  the  Glafs 
for  the  People  of  New  England;  but 
the  records  fix  the  day  as  the  19th. 


14 


Memoir  of 

truth  is  that,  like  many  productions  of  its  clafs  at  that  day, 
it  contains  frequent  expreffions  fufceptible  of  different  inter¬ 
pretations.  He  who  choofes  to  underhand  them  in  a  literal 
fenfe  may  eafily  argue  that  they  are  violent  and  inflamma¬ 
tory  ; 22  but,  tefted  by  the  rules  of  conflruction  ufually  applied 
to  like  productions,  they  muff  be  adjudged,  we  think,  to  deal 
with  nothing  more  fubftantial  than  fymbolical  fwords  and 
figurative  firebrands.23  And  thefe,  we  apprehend,  were  then 
too  common  in  every  pulpit  to  fuggeft  the  idea  of  actual  vio¬ 
lence  to  the  moft  vivid  imagination.  But  the  fermon  was 
feized  upon  as  the  means  of  inflicting  a  blow  upon  a  promi¬ 
nent  reprefentative  of  the  obnoxious  opinions. 

On  the  ninth  of  the  following  March,  the  General  Court 
affembled,  attended  by  an  advifory  council  of  the  clergy  of 
the  colony,24  who  had  deferred  all  lectures  for  three  weeks, 
in  order  that  they  might  have  no  hindrance  in  making  a 
final  difpofition  of  the  Antinomian  imbroglio.  Wheel¬ 
wright  was  fent  for  on  the  firft  day  of  the  feffion  ;  but  it 
was  not  till  two  or  three  days  later  that  matters  were  ripe 

for 


22  Dr.  Palfrey,  in  his  valuable  Hiftory 
of  New  England,  attributes  more  incen-* 
diary  qualifies  to  the  difcourfe  than  it 
adlually  proved  to  poffefs.  In  note  (i) 
to  page  479  °f  volume  i,  he  fays  :  “  It 
was  perhaps,  well,  that  this  fermon  was 
delivered  at  Braintree,  and  that  the 
angry  men  whom  it  ftimulated  did  not 
pafs  Winthrop’s  houfe  in  returning  to 
their  homes.”  In  reality,  the  fermon 
was  preached  in  Bolton,  within  a  Hone’s 
throw  of  Winthrop’s  houfe  ;  and  the 
fa<5t  that  it  led  to  no  tumultuous  demon- 
ftration  of  any  kind  may  well  induce 
thofe  who  have  thought  that  danger 


to  the  public  peace  and  fecurity  was 
threatened  by  Wheelwright’s  teachings 
to  give  the  fubjedt  a  candid  reconsid¬ 
eration. 

23  Wheelwright  himfelf  fays  in  the 
fermon,  “  The  children  of  God  .  .  . 
muft  fight  and  fight  with  fpirituall  weap¬ 
ons,  for  the  weapons  of  our  warfare  are 
not  carnall,  but  fpirituall.” 

24  Samuel  Groom,  a  Quaker,  in  his 
Glafs  for  the  People  of  New  England, 
publifhed  at  London  in  1676,  fays  the 
court  confifted  of  “  Henry  Vane,  Gov¬ 
ernor,  Twelve  Magiftrates,  Twelve 
Priefts,  and  Thirty  Three  Deputies.” 


i5 


Wheelwright. 


for  his  arraignment.  He  was  then  fummoned  before  the 
legiflative  and  judicial  tribunal,  and  informed  that  he  was 
fent  for  “  to  fatisfy  the  court  about  fome  paffages  of  his  fer- 
mon,  which  feemed  to  be  offenfive.”  Thereupon  was  pro¬ 
duced  what  purported  to  be  a  copy  of  his  Faft-day  dif- 
courfe,  and  he  “was  demanded  if  he  would  own  it.”25  He 
very  naturally  declined  to  accept  the  report  of  another, 
probably  unfriendly,  party  as  a  true  verfion  of  his  lan¬ 
guage  ;  but,  meaning  to  ftand  by  what  he  had  faid,  he  laid 
before  the  affembly  his  own  copy  of  the  fermon.  He  was 
then  remanded,  but  defired  to  be  ready  when  again  called 
for. 

The  next  day  he  was  again  cited  before  the  Legiflature. 
At  this  point  a  petition  was  prefented,  figned  by  more  than 
forty  members  of  the  Bofton  church,  praying  that  the  Legif¬ 
lature,  when  adting  as  a  judicial  court,  would  fit  with  open 
doors,  and  would  refrain  from  paffmg  upon  any  queftions  of 
religious  doctrine,  which  the  eccjefiaftical  tribunals  could 
fettle.  The  petition  was  evidently  in  the  intereft  of  Wheel¬ 
wright,  and  its  prayer  at  the  prefent  day  would  be  con- 

fidered 


25  This  “copy”  muft  have  been  the 
refult  of  an  attempt  to  take  down  the 
language  of  Wheelwright  “in  charac¬ 
ters,”  as  the  phrafe  was,  by  fome  fhort- 
hand  writer  of  the  day.  This  fa6t 
fhows  how  clofely  Wheelwright’s  ut¬ 
terances  were  watched  by  thofe  who 
fought  for  caufe  of  offence  againft  him. 
His  preaching  in  Bofton  on  that  day 
appears  to  have  been  accidental.  Cot¬ 
ton  gave  the  regular  fermon,  after 
which  Wheelwright,  being  prefent,  was 
called  upon  to  “exercife  as  a  private 


brother.”  —  Short  Story ,  52.  That  he 
was  to  be  in  Bofton  was  probably  not 
generally  known  ;  that  he  would  de¬ 
liver  an  elaborate  difcourfe  no  one 
could  have  forefeen  ;  for,  if  that  had 
been  underftood,  it  would  have  been 
mentioned  by  Winthrop,  or  fome 
other  contemporary.  Yet  there  was 
the  inevitable  reporter,  note-book  in 
hand,  refolved  that  nothing  fhould  fall 
from  Wheelwright’s  lips  that  did  not 
go  down  in  black  and  white. 


1 6  Memoir  of 

fidered  eminently  reafonable ;  but  the  Legiflature  made 
fhort  anfwer  to  it  on  the  back  of  the  paper  itfelf. 

The  examination  of  Wheelwright  then  began  with  clofed 
doors.  He  was  informed  that  the  Court  had  confidered  of 
his  fermon,  and  defired  to  afk  him  fome  queflions  “  to  clear 
his  meaning.”  Wheelwright,  in  reply,  inquired  whether  he 
was  fent  for  as  an  innocent  perfon  or  guilty.  He  was 
informed,  “  as  neither,  but  as  fufpected  only.”  He  then  afked 
who  were  his  accufers.  The  Court  anfwered,  “  his  fermon, 
which  being  acknowledged  by  him,  they  would  proceed 
ex-officio?  At  this  expreffion,  fome  of  the  friends  of  the 
accufed,  who  were  members  of  the  affembly,  exclaimed 
indignantly  that  the  proceeding  favored  of  the  courfe  of  the 
High  Commission,26  —  a  remark  which  was  certainly  not 
unjuftified  by  the  inquifitorial  manner  in  which  the  ar¬ 
raignment  was  conducted.  Wheelwright,  apparently  by  ad¬ 
vice  of  his  friends,  then  declined  to  anfwer  interrogatories, 
and  was  remanded. 

In  the  afternoon  he  was  again  brought  in.  All  the  min- 
ifters  were  prefent,  and,  the  doors  being  thrown  open  to  the 
public,  there  was  a  great  affembly.  The  Faft-day  fermon 
was  produced,  and  many  paffages  read  from  it,  which  were 
acknowledged  and  juftified  by  their  author.  Wheelwright 
was  again  inquired  of,  as  he  had  been  the  day  before,  if  he 
did  not  mean  by  the  expreffion,  “  thofe  under  a  covenant 

of 

26  This  arbitrary  tribunal,  of  unlim-  to  any  fufpedted  perfon  an  oath  called 
ited  power,  was  eftablifhed  during  the  “  ex-officio,”  which  bound  him  to  an- 
reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth.  It  is  de-  fwer  all  queflions,  even  though  he  might 
fcribed  in  Hume’s  England  and  in  thereby  be  obliged  to  criminate  him- 
Neal’s  Hiflory  of  the  Puritans.  The  felf. 
commiffion  was  authorized  to  adminifler 


Wheelwright . 


17 


of  works,”  the  minifters  and  other  Chriftians  of  the  churches 
in  the  colony.  He  would  admit  nothing  of  the  kind,  but 
anfwered  fagacioufly  that,  “  if  he  were  fhown  any  that  walked 
in  fuch  a  way  as  he  had  defc-ribed  to  be  a  covenant  of  works, 
them  he  did  mean.” 27 


Finding  he  could  not  be  drawn  into  a  wholefale  admif- 
fion  which  fuited  their  purpofe,  his  profecutors  proceeded  to 
examine  witneffes  about  another  fermon  of  his,  which  had 
given  them  caufe  of  offence.  The  defign  of  this  ftep  plainly 
was  to  obtain  teftimony  that  Wheelwright  claffed  all  thofe 
who  difagreed  with  him  in  religious  opinion  as  under  a 
covenant  of  works ;  then,  as  he  had  in  his  Faft-day  fermon 
denounced  thofe  coming  under  that  defcription  as  Anti- 
chrifts,  unbelievers,  and  enemies  of  the  Lord,  it  would  fol¬ 
low  that  he  intended  to  include  the  great  body  of  the  clergy 
and  church-members  in  the  denunciation;  O.  E.  D.28 

The 


27  Felt  afferts,  in  I  Eccles.  Hift.  273 
that  Wheelwright  confelled  that  he 
meant  “  his  opponents  in  dodtrine  ”  by 
the  expreffion  thofe  under  a  covenant 
of  works.”  But  the  authorities  do  not 
fupport  this  ftatement ;  that  is,  if  we 
are  to  underftand  his  opponents  in  doc¬ 
trine  to  be  the  great  body  of  the  clergy 
in  the  colony.  Throughout  his  exami¬ 
nation,  Wheelwright  refufed  to  admit 
that  he  fo  intended.  Groom  fays  that 
he  bid  the  court  prove  their  charges  by 
Scripture  ;  that  he  “  offered  to  prove 
his  Dodtrine  by  Scriptures  ;  ”  and  that 
they  “  Arraigned  him,  Judged  him,  and 
Condemned  him,  but  could  not  difprove 
his  Dodtrine,”  —  Glafs  for  the  People 
of  N.  E.  4,  5. 

^  The  only  account  we  poffefs  of  the 
teftimony  alluded  to  in  the  text  is  de¬ 


rived  from  Groom’s  Glafs  for  the  Peo¬ 
ple  of  New  England,  pp.  6,  7.  Richard 
Collicott,  he  fays,  bore  witnefs  that 
Wheelwright’s  “  Ufe  in  his  Sermon 
was  to  put  a  Difference  between  the 
Covenant  of  Works  and  a  Covenant  of 
Grace,  and  I  do  conceive  that  he  did 
drive  againft  the  things  now  in  queftion. 
And  for  the  Light  that  is  revealed  by 
the  Spirit,  he  did  plainly  and  pundtually 
fay,  That  in  that  cafe  there  was  nothing 
to  be  feen  but  the  Glorious  Light  of  the 
Spirit  breaking  in  upon  the  Soul  in  an 
abfolute  Promife.”  According  to  the 
fame  authority,  the  teftimony  of  William 
Spencer  was  as  follows  :  “  Wheelwright 
teaches  that  the  knowledge  of  our  Sanc¬ 
tification,  as  well  as  our  Juftification,  is 
only  by  our  Faith  in  Chrift,  and  that  in 
the  Covenant  of  Grace  nothing  is  re¬ 
vealed 


3 


1 8  Memoir  of 

The  Court,  having  put  in  the  evidence  on  this  point,  were 
prepared  to  propofe,  by  way  of  climax,  the  final  queftion  to 
the  clerical  council,  “  Whether,  by  that  which  you  have 
heard  concerning  Mafier  Wheelwright’s  fermon,  and  that 
which  was  witneffed  concerning  him,  ye  do  conceive  that 
the  minifters  in  this  country  do  walk  in  and  teach,  fuch  a 
way  of  falvation  and  evidencing  thereof  as  he  defcribeth  and 
accounteth  to  be  a  covenant  of  works  ?  ”  The  elders  de- 
fired  a  feafon  for  confideration  before  anfwering  the  quef¬ 
tion.  Even  in  thofe  contentious  times  it  muff  have  been 
difficult  for  fome  of  them  to  perfuade  themfelves  that  a  con- 
fcientious,  diligent,  pious  brother  of  their  own  order  meant 
deliberately  to  clafs  them  with  unbelievers  and  outcafls,  fimply 
on  account  of  a  difference  of  opinion  upon  fome  abftrufe 
and  fubtle  points  of  dodlrine.  But  the  fuccefs  of  the  whole 
profecution  hung  upon  the  reply  they  fhould  give  to  the 
interrogatory  fubmitted  to  them.  A  night  fufficed  to  filence 
all  fcruples,  and  the  next  morning  the  minifters  returned 
into  court  with  an  affirmative  anfwer,  “  in  the  very  words  of 
the  queftion,”  —  all  fave  Cotton  concurring  therein. 

The  Court  had  then  no  difficulty  in  coming  to  a  refolu- 
tion  that  Wheelwright  was  guilty  of  “  fedition  and  contempt 
of  the  civil  authority,”  which  was  duly  entered  of  record. 

But 

vealed  but  Jefus  Chrift  and  his  Right-  Court,  and  fo  judges  of  Wheelwright, 
eoufnefs  freely  given  to  the  Soul,  and  as  well  as  witnefies  againlt  him.  We 
the  knowledge  of  it  comes  by  Faith  :  learn  from  the  Short  Story,  46,  that  the 
and  this  is  contrary  to  the  DoCtrine  proceedings  were  all  taken  down  by 
preacht  in  New  England,  for  it  is  com-  Wheelwright’s  fpecial  friends,  “by 
monly  taught  in  New  England,  That  a  characters.”  It  is  a  matter  of  regret 
man  may  prove  his  Juftification  by  his  that  their  report  has  not  been  preferved 
SanCtification.”  Collicott  and  Spencer  to  our  day. 
were  both  members  of  the  General 


19 


Wheelwright • 


But  we  gladly  welcome  evidence  that  this  refult  was  not 
reached  without  extraordinary  effort.  William  Coddington, 
a  witnefs  of  the  higheft  character,  who  was  a  member  of  the 
Court,  has  left  his  teftimony  that,  with  Governor  Vane  and 
himfelf,  the  majority  of  the  magiftrates  and  deputies  were 
for  two  days  oppofed  to  the  banifhment  of  Wheelwright ; 
“  but  the  priefts  got  two  of  the  magiftrates  on  their  fide,  and 
fo  got  the  major  part  of  them.”29 

The  opinion  of  the  Court  having  been  declared,  Wheel¬ 
wright  was  ordered  to  appear  at  the  next  feffion  to  abide 
fentence.  It  was  then  moved  that  he  be  enjoined  from 
preaching  in  the  mean  time.  This  propofal  to  introduce 
in  their  new  home  one  of  the  arbitrary  meafures  which  they 
had  branded  as  intolerance  not  to  be  endured  from  the 
Englifh  church,  the  Legiflature  were  wife  enough  to  refer  to 
the  confideration  of  their  fpiritual  advifers.  A  precedent  fo 
dangerous  to  their  own  independence  was  not  likely  to 
receive  much  favor  from  the  elders ;  and  they  recommended 
that  the  matter  be  fubmitted  to  the  church  of  Bofton,  who, 
it  was  well  underftood,  would  be  in  favor  of  giving  the  larg¬ 
ed  liberty  of  fpeech  to  their  favorite  brother. 

Governor  Vane  and  fome  of  the  magiftrates  and  deputies 
who  did  not  concur  in  the  finding  of  the  majority,  requefted 
that  their  diffent  thereto  might  be  placed  upon  the  records ; 
but  this  was  refuted  by  the  Court.  They  then  tendered  a 
proteft,  which  was  alfo  rejected,  upon  the  plea  that  it  juftified 

Wheelwright 

29  Letter  of  Coddington  to  Ralph  fadt  that  Vane  was  out  of  the  country 
Fretwell,  2  Felt’s  Eccl.  Hift.  61 1.  before  the  final  fentence  was  pro- 
That  this  muft  refer  to  the  prefent  nounced  againft  Wheelwright, 
adtion  of  the  Court  is  proved  by  the 


20 


Memoir  of 

Wheelwright  and  reflected  upon  the  Court.  The  majority 
would,  indeed,  have  allowed  them  to  fubfcribe  their  fimple 
diffent  to  the  words  of  the  record ;  but  apparently  they  dif- 
dained  any  compromife. 

A  remonftrance  was  then  fpeedily  prepared,  and  figned 
by  “above  three  (core”  perfons,  among  whom  were  many 
of  the  principal  inhabitants  of  the  colony,  and  on  the  ninth 
of  March  prefented  to  the  General  Court.  As  peremptory, 
and,  in  feveral  cafes,  fevere  punifhment  was  fubfequently  in¬ 
flicted  upon  thofe  who  fubfcribed  this  paper,  for  their  temer¬ 
ity  in  indulging  in  too  much  plain nefs  of  fpeech  to  the 
alleged  “  difhonor  and  contempt  ”  of  their  rulers,  it  is  thought 
advifable  to  infert  the  offenfive  article  here  in  full,  as  an 
indication  of  the  animus  of  the  feveral  parties. 

Wee  whofe  names  are  under  written  (have  diligently  obferved  this  hon¬ 
oured  Courts  proceedings  againft  our  deare  and  reverend  brother  in  Chrift 
Mr.  Wheel,  now  under  cenfure  of  the  Court,  for  the  truth  of  Chrift)  wee  do 
humbly  befeech  this  honourable  Court  to  accept  this  Remonftrance  and 
Petition  of  ours,  in  all  due  fubmiftion  tendred  to  your  Worfhips. 

For  firft,  whereas  our  beloved  Brother  Mr.  Wheel,  is  cenfured  for  con¬ 
tempt  by  the  greater  part  of  this  honoured  Court,  wee  defire  your  Worfhips 
to  confider  the  ftncere  intention  of  our  Brother  to  promote  your  end  in  the 
day  of  Faft,  for  whereas  wee  do  perceive  your  principall  intention  the  day 
of  faft  looked  chiefely  at  the  publick  peace  of  the  Churches,  our  Reverend 
Brother  did  to  his  beft  ftrength,  and  as  the  Lord  aftifted  him,  labour  to 
promote  your  end  and  therefore  indevoured  to  draw  us  neerer  unto  Chrift, 
the  head  of  our  union,  that  fo  wee  might  bee  eftablifhed  in  peace,  which 
wee  conceive  to  bee  the  true  way,  fandtified  of  God,  to  obtaine  your  end, 
and  therefore  deferves  no  fuch  cenfure,  as  wee  conceive. 

Secondly,  Whereas  our  deere  Brother  is  cenfured  of  fedition,  wee  befeech 
your  Worfhips  to  confider  that  either  the  perfon  condemned  muft  bee  cul¬ 
pable  of  fome  feditious  fabt,  or  his  dobtrine  muft  bee  feditious  or  muft 

breed 


Wheelwright . 


2  I 


breed  fedition  in  the  hearts  of  his  hearers,  or  elfe  wee  know  not  upon 
what  ground  hee  fliould  bee  cenfured.  Now  to  the  firft,  wee  have  not 
heard  any  that  have  witneffed  againft  our  brother  for  any  feditious  fa6t. 
Secondly,  neither  was  the  do6trine  it  felf,  being  no  other  but  the  very 
expreffions  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  himfelfe,  and  therefore  cannot  juftly  be 
branded  with  fedition.  Thirdly,  if  you  look  at  the  effe6ts  of  his  Dodtrine 
upon  the  hearers,  it  hath  not  ftirred  up  fedition  in  us,  not  fo  much  as  by 
accident ;  wee  have  not  drawn  the  fword  as  fometimes  Peter  did,  rathly, 
neither' have  wee  refcued  our  innocent  Brother,  as  fometimes  the  Ifraelites 
did  Jonathan ,  and  yet  they  did  not  feditioufly.  The  Covenant  of  free 
grace  held  forth  by  our  Brother  hath  taught  us  rather  to  become  humble 
fuppliants  to  your  Worlhips,  and  if  wee  fliould  not  prevaile,  wee  would 
rather  with  patience  give  our  cheekes  to  the  fmiters.  Since  therefore  the 
Teacher,  the  Dodtrine,  and  the  hearers  bee  moft  free  from  fedition  (as  wee 
conceive)  wee  humbly  befeech  you  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jefus  Chriffc, 
your  Judge  and  ours,  and  for  the  honour  of  this  Court  and  the  proceed¬ 
ings  thereof,  that  you  will  bee  pleafed  either  to  make  it  appeare  to  us,  and 
to  all  the  world,  to  whom  the  knowledge  of  all  thefe  things  will  come, 
wherein  the  fedition  lies,  or  elfe  acquit  our  Brother  of  fuch  a  cenfure. 

Further,  wee  befeech  you  remember  the  old  method  of  Satan,  the 
ancient  enemy  of  free  Grace  in  all  ages  of  the  Churches,  who  hath  raifed 
up  fuch  calumnies  againft  the  faithfull  Prophets  of  God.  Eliah  was  called 
the  troubler  of  Ifrael ,  i  King.  18.  17,  18.  Amos  was  charged  for  confpi- 
racy,  Amos ,  7.  10.  Paul  was  counted  a  peftilent  fellow,  or  moover  of  fedi¬ 
tion,  and  a  ring-leader  of  a  Sect,  Acts ,  24.  5.  and  Chrift  himfelfe,  as  well 
as  Paul,  was  charged  to  bee  a  Tehcher  of  New  DoHrine,  Mark ,  1.  27. 
Acts ,  17.  19.  Now  wee  befeech  you  confider,  whether  that  old  ferpent 
work  not  after  his  old  method,  even  in  our  daies. 

« 

Further,  wee  befeech  you  confider  the  danger  of  medling  againft  the 
Prophets  of  God,  Pfal.  105.  14,  15,  for  what  yee  doe  unto  them  the  Lord 
Jefus  takes  as  done  unto  himfelfe  ;  if  you  hurt  any  of  his  members,  the 
head  is  very  fenfible  of  it :  for  fo  faith  the  Lord  of  Hofts,  Hee  that  toucheth 
you,  toucheth  the  apple  of  mine  eye,  Zach.  2 . 8.  And  better  a  mill-ftone 
were  hanged  about  our  neckes,  and  that  wee  were  c aft  into  the  sea,  then 
that  wee  fhould  offend  any  of  thefe  little  ones  which  beleeve  on  him, 
Mat.  18.  6. 


And 


22 


Memoir  of 

And  laftly,  we  befeech  you  confider  how  you  fhould  ftand  in  relation  to 
us,  as  nurfing  Fathers,  which  give  us  incouragement  to  promote  our  hum¬ 
ble  requefts  to  you,  or  elfe  we  would  fay  with  the  Prophet,  If  a.  22.  4, 
Looke  from  me  that  I  may  weep  bitterly,  Labour  not  to  comfort  me,  &c. ; 
or  as  fer.  9.  2.  O  that  I  had  in  the  Wilderneffe  a  lodging  place  of  a  way¬ 
faring  man.  And  thus  have  we  made  knowne  our  griefes  and  defires  to 
your  Worfhips,  and  leave  them  upon  record  with  the  Lord  and  with  you, 
knowing  that  if  we  fhould  receive  repulfe  from  you,  with  the  Lord  we 
fhall  find  grace.30 

It  is  needlefs  to  fay  that  the  remonftrance  produced  no 
figns  of  relenting  among  thofe  who  were  carrying  on  the 
profecution  againft  Wheelwright. 

The  next  meeting  of  the  Legiflature  was  held  on  the  fuc- 
ceeding  feventeenth  of  May.  It  was  the  time  of  the  general 
election  of  colonial  officers.  The  party  oppofed  to  Vane 
and  the  Antinomian  movement,  and  determined  to  replace 
Winthrop  in  the  gubernatorial  feat,  had  left  no  done  un¬ 
turned  to  fecure  fuccefs  at  the  polls.  Their  own  ftrength 
lay  in  the  country ;  their  opponents’  in  the  capital.  They 
had  procured  the  place  of  election  to  be  changed  from  Bof- 
ton,  where  the  almoft  univerfal  feeling  in  favor  of  Vane 
might  have  exercifed  much  influence  on  the  refult,  to  New¬ 
town,  now  Cambridge.  They  had  alfo  taken  care  that  the 
freemen  from  the  diflant  towns,  notwithflanding  they  were 
permitted  by  law  to  fend  in  their  votes  by  proxy,  fhould  be 
prefent  in  perfon  in  fufficient  numbers  to  infure  the  pre¬ 
dominance  of  their  party  in  any  contingency. 

It  was  manifeft  at  the  outfet  that  Vane’s  fupporters  were 
outnumbered.  When  he  propofed,  before  proceeding  to  the 

choice 


30  Short  Story,  21. 


23 


Wheelwright . 


choice  of  officers,  to  read  a  petition  from  the  people  of  Bof- 
ton,  intended,  probably,  to  take  the  fenfe  of  the  great  body 
of  the  freemen  in  regard  to  the  adlion  againft  Wheelwright, 
the  other  party  demanded  that  he  fhould  at  once  go  on  with 
the  election.  In  a  warm  debate  upon  the  fubjedl,  Wilfon 
mounted  a  tree,  and  delivered  to  the  furrounding  crowd 
“  the  firft  flump  fpeech  ”  uttered  in  America.  The  majority 
voted  to  pafs  over  the  petition  in  behalf  of  Wheelwright 
unread  ;  Winthrop  was  chofen  governor,  and  Vane  and  his 
friends  were  relegated  to  private  flations.  An  order  was 
even  paffed  by  the  dominant  party,  which  could  not  have 
failed,  as  it  was  clearly  intended,  to  touch  Vane  to  the  quick, 
that  “  no  man  fhould  ever  after  be  made  governor,  before 
he  had  been  one  whole  year  in  the  country,  at  leafl.” 31  It 
is  not  ftrange  that  the  excitement  ran  high  on  that  day,  for 
fo  ffiarp  a  contefl  had  never  before  been  witneffed  in  any 
political  election  in  New  England.32 

Further  adlion  in  the  cafe  of  Wheelwright  was  again 
deferred  until  the  next  feffion  of  the  General  Court  in 
Auguft ;  and  he  was  informed  that,  if  in  the  mean  time  he 
would  retradl  his  obnoxious  opinions,  he  might  expedl  favor, 
but  not  otherwife.  Wheelwright  replied  boldly  that,  if  he 
were  guilty  of  fedition,  he  ought  to  be  put  to  death  ;  and 
that  if  the  Court  intended  to  pafs  fentence  upon  him,  he 
fhould  appeal  to  the  king,  “  for  he  could  retradl  nothing.” 

The 


31  I  Hutchinfon’s  Hilt.  Mafs.  (3d 
Am.  ed.)  65  ;  Hubbard’s  New  Eng¬ 
land,  in  5  Mafs.  Hift.  Soc.  Collections, 
2d  feries,  235. 


32  Winthrop  fays  there  was  “  danger 
of  tumult ;  ”  there  were  “  fierce  fpeech- 
es,”  and  “fome  laid  hands  on  others.” 
—  1  Sav.  Wint.  *220.  Thefe  expref- 

fions 


24 


Memoir  of 

The  excitement  on  the  fubjebt  was  kept  alive  in  the  inter¬ 
val  by  the  iffue  of  a  public  vindication  of  the  Court  in  their 
adlion  againft  Wheelwright,  which,  as  a  matter  of  courfe, 
called  forth  a  “  fmall  traCtate  ”  by  the  latter  m  defence  of  his 
doCtrines.  A  voluminous  paper  controverfy  then  enfued,  to 
which  various  writers  contributed.33  Wheelwright  ftill  kept 
his  pulpit  at  Mount  Wollafton;  and  it  has  been  deemed 
worthy  of  mention  that,  on  the  occafion  of  a  Fail  held  in 
May,  his  friends,  Vane  and  Coddington,  went  out  from  Bof- 
ton,  and  paffed  the  day  with  him  there. 

On  the  following  twelfth  of  July,  a  brother  of  Mrs.  Hutch- 
infon,  and  fome  others  of  Wheelwright’s  friends,  arrived  in 
Bofton  from  England.34  Among  the  meafures  defigned  for 
the  extirpation  of  Antinomianifm  from  the  Bay,  a  law  had 
recently  been  paffed  forbidding  new-comers  to  live  in  the 
colony  for  a  longer  time  than  three  weeks  without  the 
written  permiffion  of  one  member  of  the  council,  or  of  two 

other 


fions  have  been  cited  as  evidence  that 
there  was  adtual  danger  to  be  appre¬ 
hended  that  the  Antinomians  might 
attempt  to  overturn  the  government  by 
violence.  Surely  no  contefted  parlia¬ 
mentary  eledtion  in  England  ever  pafl'ed 
off  with  fo  much  forbearance  and  re- 
fpedt  for  the  public  peace.  Winthrop, 
who  never  failed  to  record  the  fmalleft 
ordinary  cafualties,  and  would  be  fure 
to  make  the  molt  of  this  occafion,  does 
not  intimate  that  fo  much  as  a  black 
eye  was  given  among  the  whole  body 
affembled.  But,  if  violence  had  been 
attempted,  is  it  not  queftionable 
whether  a  large  fhare  of  the  refponfi- 
bility  for  it  would  not  juftly  fall  upon 


Wilfon,  for  his  vehement,  fecular  har¬ 
angue  ? 

33  None  of  thefe  pieces  were  printed 
at  the  time,  for  as  yet  there  was  no 
prefs  on  the  continent  north  of  Mexico. 
They  were  paffed  around  in  manufcript, 
according  to  the  cuftom  of  the  time. 
The  Apology  for  the  General  Court 
afterwards  appeared  in  the  Short  Story, 
and  it  is  probable  that  Wheelwright’s 
tradfate  conftituted  the  foundation  of 
Mercurius  Americanus. 

34  It  is  not  known  who  thefe  were, 
but  it  is  not  unlikely  that  fome  of  them 
were  Wheelwright’s  former  parifhioners 
and  neighbors,  who  were  found  with 
him  the  next  year  at  Exeter. 


25 


Wheelwright. 

other  magistrates.35  Wheelwright’s  friends  obtained  leave 
from  Governor  Winthrop  to  remain  four  months,  but  no 
longer. 

In  Auguft,  matters  were  not  ripe  for  final  adtion  againfl 
Wheelwright,  and  he  was  enjoined  to  appear  further  at  the 
next  feffion  of  the  Legiflature  in  November. 

Two  days  afterward,  Vane  fet  fail  for  England.  He 
would  have  been  more  than  human  if  he  had  not  felt  hurt 
and  indignant  at  the  treatment  he  had  undergone  at  the 
hands  of  fome  of  his  opponents  in  New  England.  But  he 
fhowed  his  magnanimity  by  forgetting  it,  and  in  after  years 
by  rendering  valuable  fervice  to  the  people  who  had  dis¬ 
paraged  him.  His  departure  deprived  the  Bofton  party  of 
its  head ;  and  thofe  who  wielded  the.  power  of  the  colony 
felt  that  they  could  now  deal  with  the  recufants  at  their 
pleafure.  In  the  belief  that  it  was  a  favorable  time  to  bring 
them  into  conformity,  the  clergy  labored  anew  with  the 
“  opinionifts.”  A  private  difficulty  between  Cotton  and 
Wheelwright,  on  the  one  part,  and  Wilfon  on  the  other, 

was 


35  This  enactment  caufed  much  dif- 
content.  It  was  fo  repugnant  to  Cot¬ 
ton  that  he  meditated  quitting  Malka- 
chufetts  on  account  of  it.  Governor 
Winthrop  found  it  neceffary  to  apolo¬ 
gize  for  it  by  an  elaborate  written  De¬ 
fence,  to  which  Vane  replied  in  a  Brief 
Anfwer,  declaring  the  law  to  be  hoftile 
to  the  principles  of  civil  and  religious 
liberty,  and  making  out  fo  ftrong  a  cafe 
that  Winthrop  felt  called  on  to  put 
forth  an  extended  Reply.  Here  the 
difcuffion  was  terminated  by  Vane’s 
departure  from  the  country.  The  three 


produ6tions  are  given  at  large  in  Hutch- 
infon’s  Collection,  67-100.  It  is  a  cu¬ 
rious  circumftance,  pointed  out  by 
George  H.  Moore,  LL.D.,  in  13  His¬ 
torical  Magazine,  29,  that  Groom,  in 
his  Glafs  for  the  People  of  N.  E.,  has 
copied  a  portion  of  the  Brief  Anfwer  as 
Wheelwright’s  teftimony  againft  the 
law.  We  are  not  inclined,  however,  on 
that  evidence,  or  from  the  ftyle  of  the 
paper  itfelf,  to  attribute  the  authorfhip  to 
Wheelwright,  but  believe  that  Hutch- 
infon  is  right  in  afcribing  it  to  Vane. 


4 


26 


Memoir  of 

was  thus  reconciled  ;  but  the  general  religious  differences 
had  become  fo  widened  by  controverfy  and  perfecution  that 
it  was  now  too  late  to  bridge  them  over. 

A  general  affembly  of  the  elders  of  all  the  churches  was 
now  refolved  upon,  —  a  meafure  which  had  been  feveral 
months  in  contemplation.30  “It  was  appointed,”  fays  Weld, 
“  in  great  part  for  the  fatisfadiion  of  the  people.” 37  It  was 
hardly  expected,  perhaps,  that  its  decrees  would  bring 
all  the  heterodox  into  line  again ;  but  it  would  certainly 
ftrengthen  the  hands  of  the  civil  authorities  in  adopting  a 
ftringent  course  with  the  intractable.  This  was  the  firft 
Synod  convened  in  New  England,  and  its  feffion  began  at 
Newtown  on  the  thirtieth  of  Auguffc,  1637.  It  was  com- 
pofed  of  about  twentyAive  minifters,  being  “  all  the  teaching 
elders  .through  the  country,”  and  fome  juft  arrived  from 
England  and  not  yet  fettled  here,  together  with  many  lay¬ 
men.  The  magiftrates  were  alfo  prefent,  and  the  doors 
were  open  to  all.  For  twenty-four  days  this  ecclefiaftical 
council  continued  in  feffion  ;  in  the  forenoons  they  framed 
their  arguments,  and  in  the  afternoons  produced  them  in 
public.  One  week  they  gave  to  the  confutation  of  eighty- 
two  “  erroneous  opinions,”  which  they  alleged  to  have  been 
brought  into  New  England,  and  “  fpread  underhand  there.” 
Next  they  proceeded  to  difcufs  and  condemn  nine  “  unfa- 
voury  speeches,”  which  they  affumed  to  be  of  Antinomian 
origin. 

Wheelwright  attended  the  meetings  of  the  Synod ;  but  we 
have  no  means  of  knowing  exactly  what  part  he  took  in 

the 


30  Cotton’s  Way,  40. 


37  Preface  to  Short  Story. 


27 


Wheelwright. 


the  proceedings.38  There  were  five  points,  however,  in 
which  he  and  Cotton  difagreed  with  the  reft  of  their  clerical 
brethren ; 39  and  apparently  the  erroneous  opinions  and  un- 
favoury  fpeeches,  except  fo  far  as  they  might  include  thofe 
points,  had  no  application  to  him.  The  Synod  was  not  un¬ 
animous  or  ftriCdy  harmonious  ; 40  and,  if  any  believed  that 
its  edidfs  would  have  much  effeCt  upon  thofe  againft  whom 
they  were  fulminated,  the  refult  proved  otherwife.  Cotton, 
indeed,  could  not  withftand  the  preffure  that  was  put  upon 
him ;  but  there  was  fcarcely  another  prominent  member  of 
the  Antinomian  party  who  was  not  rather  confirmed  than 
fhaken  in  his  faith. 

♦ 

The  moral  tufts  of  grafs  having  failed  of  their  purpofe, 
the  rulers  of  the  Bay  now  determined  to  refort  to  fterner 
meafures.  The  firft  thing  was  to  make  fure  of  the  General 
Court.  The  deputies  were  probably  found  to  be  unfuited 
to  the  kind  of  work  required  of  them,  and  the  extraordinary 
courfe  of  a  new  election  was  adopted.41  On  the  fecond  of 
November,  the  Legifiature,  fortified  by  the  new  members 
feledted  for  the  purpofe,  came  together,  with  the  determi¬ 
nation  to  rid  the  colony  of  the  fedlaries  who  would  not  be 

dragooned 


88  The  debates  and  proceedings  of 
the  Synod  were  taken  down  in  Ihort- 
hand,  and  afterwards  written  out  for 
publication  by  John  Higginfon,  who 
was  employed  for  the  purpofe  by  the 
magiftrates  and  minifters. — Ellis'' s  Life 
of  Anne  Hutchinfon ,  261.  The  manu- 
fcript  was  never  printed,  but  was  ex¬ 
tant  in  1743,  the  date  of  the  publication 
of  Dr.  Charles  Chauncey’s  Seafonable 
Thoughts  on  the  State  of  Religion  in 
New  England  ;  but  it  is  not  known  to 
be  now  in  exiftence.  —  See  13  Hiflori- 
cal  Magazine,  26. 


30  1  Savage’s  Winthrop,  *239. 

40  13  Hiliorical  Magazine,  27  ;  1 

Savage’s  Winthrop,  *238. 

41  It  appears  that  the  General  Court 
adjourned  during  the  feffion  of  the  Synod 
and  met  again  on  the  twenty-fixth  of 
September.  It  was  then  dijfolved, ,  and 
a  new  one  ordered  to  be  fummoned.  — 
1  Mafs.  Colonial  Records ,  in  loco. 
This  fad!  is  mentioned  in  emphatic 
terms  in  1  Backus’s  Hiltory  of  New 
England,  84. 


28 


Memoir  of 

dragooned  into  the  abandonment  of  their  convictions.  They 
began  with  Wheelwrights  friends  in  their  own  affembly. 
William  Afpinwall,  a  deputy  from  Bofton,  who  drew  the 
petition  in  favor  of  Wheelwright,  which  had  been  prefented 
on  the  ninth  of  the  preceding  March,  was  afked  if  he  ftill 
adhered  to  its  fentiments,  and  replied  that  he  did.  A  vote 
for  his  expulfion  was  immediately  paffed.  Upon  that,  John 
Coggefhall,  one  of  his  colleagues,  rofe  in  his  place,  and  . 
declared  that,  though  he  did  not  fign  that  petition,  yet  he 
approved  of  it;  and,  as  they  had  oufted  Afpinwall,  they 
“  had  belt  make  one  work  of  all.”  The  Court  took  him  at 
his  word,  and  fent  him  off  with  the  other.  Not  content 
with  this,  they  rejected  a  deputy  eleCted  in  place  of  one  of 
the  extruded  members,  becaufe  he  was  a  figner  of  the  peti¬ 
tion.  The  ftanch  Coddington  rode  out  the  ftorm,  though  he 
ineffectually  made  a  motion  to  repeal  the  aCt  of  cenfure 
againft  Wheelwright. 

The  Court  then  cited  Wheelwright  to  appear  forthwith. 
Upon  his  prefenting  himfelf,  they  inquired  if  he  was  ready 
to  confefs  his  offences.  He  replied  that  he  was  not  guilty ; 
that  he  had  preached  nothing  but  the  truth  of  Chriffc,  and 
he  was  not  refponfible  for  the  application  which  they  chofe 
to  make  of  it.  After  haranguing  him  at  fome  length,  re¬ 
ceiving  no  other  reply,  the  Court  paffed  fentence  upon  him 
as  follows  :  “  Mr.  John  Wheelwright  being  formerly  con¬ 
victed  of  contempt  and  fedition,  and  now  iuftifiing  himfelfe 
and  his  former  praCtife,  being  to  the  difturbance  of  the  civill 
peace,  hee  is  by  the  Court  disfranchized  and  banifhed.” 

From  this  fentence  Wheelwright  claimed  an  appeal  to 
the  king.  The  Court  refufed  to  entertain  the  motion,  upon 

the 


29 


W heelwright . 

the  ground  that  their  charter  gave  them  final  jurifdiClion. 
He  was  then  afked  if  he  would  give  fecurity  for  his  peace¬ 
able  departure  from  the  colony.  This  he  declined  to  do, 
and  the  Court  ordered  him  into  the  cuftody  of  the  marfhal. 

A  night’s  reflection  convinced  the  prifoner  of  the  ufeleff- 
nefs  of  contending  with  the  power  of  the  Court,  and  the 
next  morning  he  made  no  objection  to  the  paffmg  of  fen- 
tence  upon  him.  The  order  for  his  disfranchifement  and 
banifhment  was  allowed  to  ftand,  and  he  was  permitted  to 
go  at  large  upon  his  promife  that,  if  he  did  not  leave  the 
jurifdiCtion  within  a  fortnight,  he  would  furrender  himfelf  to 
Captain  Ifrael  Stoughton,  at  his  houfe,  “  to  be  kept  till  hee 
be  difpofed  of ;  ”  while  one  of  his  parifhioners,  Atherton 
Hough,  undertook  to  fatisfy  any  charge  that  Stoughton  or 
the  Court  fhould  be  at.  Another  attempt  was  made  to 
filence  Wheelwright  by  interpofing  a  ftipulation  that  he 
fhould  not  preach  during  the  fourteen  days  of  his  flay ;  but, 
as  he  flatly  refufed  to  affent  to  the  condition,  it  was  judged 
not  prudent  to  infill  upon  it. 

The  “  arch-herefiarch  ”  being  difpofed  of,  the  authorities 
next  turned  their  attention  to  his  advocates  and  followers. 
Some  they  disfranchifed  ;  others  they  banifhed  from  the 
jurifdiCtion,  or  fined  ;  and  .a  great  number  they  difarmed, 
thus  inflicting  a  peculiar  indignity  upon  them,  befides 
depriving  them  of  the  means  of  defence,  at  that  time  of 
prime  neceffity.  The  upfhot  was  that  no  fmall  portion 
of  the  men  thus  harfhly  treated  fhook  the  duft  of  Maffachu- 
fetts  from  their  feet,  and  went  their  way  into  other  parts  of 
the  country. 

Thus  terminated  thefe  extraordinary  proceedings  againfl 

Wheelwright. 


3° 


Memoir  of 

Wheelwright.  Attempts  have  been  made  to  juftify  them 
on  “  the  tyrant’s  plea  ”  of  neceffity ;  but  it  is  difficult  to  fee 
in  the  annals  of  the  times,  though  written  by  Wheelwright’s 
moft  adlive  and  ftrenuous  oppofers,  any  good  grounds  of 
apprehenfion  for  the  fafety  of  fociety  or  the  ftate,  growing 
out  of  his  teachings  or  condudt.  And  it  is  a  fignificant  fadt 
that  no  apologift  for  his  profecution,  from  that  day  to  this, 
has  been  able  to  fpeak  of  it  in  language  of  unqualified 
approval. 

Fortunately  for  Wheelwright,  though  excluded  from  Maf- 
fachufetts,  he  was  at  no  lofs  for  a  place  of  refuge.  The 
Puritans  of  Rhode  Ifland  urged  and  expedted  him  to  go  and 
fettle  amongft  them  as  their  minifler.42  But,  though  a  “  far 
richer  foyle  and  richer  company  ”  awaited  him  there,  he  did 
not  think  fit  to  comply  with  their  invitation.  His  eyes  were 
turned  in  the  oppofite  diredtion,  toward  the  virgin  forefts  of 
New  Hampfhire. 

Pafcataqua  was  then  the  general  defignation  applied  by 
people  refiding  elfewhere  to  the  region  bordering  on  the 
river  of  that  name 43  and  its  chief  tributaries,  of  which 
the  Squamfcot  is  one.  Wheelwright  no  doubt  quitted 
Maffachufetts  within  the  time  limited  in  his  fentence  of 
banifhment,  and  proceeded  forthwith  to  that  part  of  New 
Hampfhire.  It  is  fupposed  that  he  went  from  Bofton  coaft- 
wife  in  a  veffel.  of  John  Clark,  afterward  of  Rhode  Ifland, 
one  of  his  fympathizers,  who  made  a  voyage  of  infpedtion  of 
the  country  lying  to  the  northward,  at  that  time.44  From 

the 

42  Callender’s  Rhode  Ifland  (4  R.  I.  43  Also  formerly  called  Pafcataquack, 
Hift.  Soc.  Collections),  116;  1  Felt’s  now  known  as  Pifcataqua. 

Eccles.  Hift.  557.  44  1  Backus’s  Hift.  New  England,  88, 

89. 


3i 


.  Wheelwright . 


the  mention  made  by  Wheelwright  of  the  difficulties  of  the 
way,45  it  feems  that  he  probably  accomplifhed  fome  part  of 
the  journey  by  land,  —  perhaps  from  Strawberry-bank,  now 
Portfmouth,  —  to  his  deflination  in  the  interior.  It  was  the 
beginning  of  a  long  and  rigorous  winter,  and  the  fnow  lay, 
from  the  fourth  of  November  till  the  fifth  of  the  fucceeding: 
March,  a  yard  deep  beyond  the  Merrimac ;  and  “  the  more 
north  the  deeper,”  according  to  Winthrop.  It  was,  in  truth, 
a  dreary  introduction  of  the  exile  to  his  new  abode. 

There  is  no  reafon  to  fuppofe  that  he  had  any  hefitation 
whither  he  fhould  direct  his  courfe  ;  and  it  is  probable  that 
he  proceeded,  as  foon  as  the  feafon  permitted,  to  the  falls  of 
the  Squamfcot,  the  fite  of  the  prefent  town  of  Exeter.  Here 
a  quiet,  inland  ffcream  united  its  waters  with  the  tides  from 
the  fea,  over  rocky  rapids,  where  the  Indians  captured  the 
active  falmon,  and  which  offered  to  the  Englifh  a  motive 
power  invaluable  to  their  propofed  fettlement.  Here  alfo 
was  lumber  in  abundance,  with  a  tolerable  proportion  of 
grafs-bearing  marfhes  and  natural  meadows.  Thefe  attrac¬ 
tions  were  fufficient,  according  to  tradition,  to  draw  to  the 
fpot  two  or  three  adventurous  pioneers,  before  the  arrival  of 
Wheelwright’s  party ;  and  the  general  belief  of  local  anti¬ 
quaries  fupports  the  tale.  To  this  day  depreffions  in  the 
foil  on  the  eaft  fide  of  the  river,  below  the  falls,  are  pointed 
out  as  the  fites  of  the  habitations,  long  fallen  to  decay,  of 
the  earlieft  fettlers  of  Exeter. 

With  thefe  hardy  frontierfmen,  or  at  Edward  Hilton’s 
plantation  of  Squamfcot,  a  few  miles  down  the  river,  Wheel¬ 
wright 

45  Mercurius  Americanus,  *24,  where,  contraction,  “  Pafcal,”  is  ufed  for  “  Paf- 
as  well  as  in  the  Short  Story,  43,  the  cataqua.” 


32 


Memoir  of 

wright  may  have  paffed  the  inclement  winter.  Beyond 
doubt  he  was  making  vigorous  preparations  for  planting 
his  fettlement  at  the  falls  in  the  early  fpring;  for,  by  the 
third  of  April,  1638,  he  had  bargained  for  the  right  of  the 
local  Indian  fagamore  to  an  extenfive  tradl  of  land,  embrac¬ 
ing  Exeter  and  the  furrounding  country;  and  on  that  day 
he  took  two  conveyances  of  the  fame,  of  the  following 
tenor : 46  — 

Know  all  men  by  thefe  prefents  that  I  Wehanownowit  Sagamore  of 
pifkatoquake  for  good  confiderations  me  therevnto  moiling  &  for  certen 
comodys  which  I  haue  received  haue  graunted  &  fould  vnto  John  Whele- 
wright  of  pifcatoquake,  Samuel  Hutchinfon  &  Auguftine  Stor  of  Bofton 
Edward  Calcord  &  Darby  Field  of  pifcatoquake  &  John  Compton  of 
Roxbury  and  Nicholas  Needome  of  Mount  Wallifton,  all  the  right  title  & 
intereft  in  all  fuch  lands,  woods,  meadows,  riuers,  brookes,  fprings  as  of 
right  belong  vnto  me  from  Meriinack  riuer  to  the  patents  of  pifcatoquake, 
bounded  wth  the  South  Eaft  fide  of  pifcatoquake  patents  &  fo  to  goe  into 
the  Country  north-Weft  thirty  miles  as  far  as  oyfter  riuer  to  haue  &  to  hold 
the  fame  to  them  &  their  heires  for  ever,  onely  the  ground  wh  is  broken 
up  excepted.  &  that  it  fhall  be  lawfull  for  the  faid  Sagamore  to  hunt  & 
fhh  &  foul  in  the  faid  limits.  In  Witnefs  whereof  I  haue  hereunto  fet  my 
hand  the  3d  day  of  April,  1638. 

Signed  &  poffeffion  giuen  Thefe  being  prefent 

James  Wall 

f  man  J  (  man  I 

James  -J  holding  >his  mrke.  Wehanownowit  <  holding  >-hismrke. 

(  tomahawk  )  (  hatchet.  ) 

his  W  C  mrke. 

\ 

William  Cole 

his  m  mrke. 

Lawrence  Cowpland. 

Know 

46  Excellent  fac-fimiles  of  thefe  docu-  terns  of  the  Indians,  which  in  the  text 
ments  produced  by  the  heliotype  pro-  are  reprefented  by  brief  verbal  de- 
cefs,  accompany  the  prefent  volume,  fcriptions. 

The  fac-fimiles  (how  the  marks  or  to- 


33 


Know  all  men  by  thefe  prfents  y*  I  Wehanownowitt  Sagamore  of  Puf- 
chataquake  for  a  certajne  fome  of  money  to  mee  in  hand  payd  &  other 
nf'chandable  coniodities  wch  I  haue  reed  as  likewife  for  other  good  caufes 
&  confiderations  mee  yr  unto  fpetially  mouing,  haue  granted  barganed 
alienated  &  sould  vnto  John  Wheele wright  of  Pifchataqua  &  Auguftine 
Storr  of  Boftone  all  thofe  Lands  woods  Medowes  Marfhes  rivers  brookes 
fprings  wth  all  the  apprtenances  emoluments  gfitts  comoditys  there  unto 
belonging  lijng  &  fituate  within  three  miles  on  the  Northerne  fide  of  ye 
river  Meremake  extending  thirty  miles  along  by  the  river  from  the  fea 
fide,  &  from  the  fayd  river  fide  to  Pifchataqua  Patents  thirty  Miles  vp  into 
the  countrey  North  Weft,  &  foe  from  the  ff alls  of  Pifchataqua  to  Oyfter 
river  thirty  Miles  fquare  evry  way,  to  haue  &  to  hould  the  fame  to  them  & 
yr  heyres  for  euer,  only  the  ground  wch  is  broaken  vp  is  excepted  &  it 
ftiall  bee  lawfull  for  ye  fayd  Sagamore  to  hunt  fifti  &  foule  in  the  fayd 
lymitts.  In  witnefle  wrof  I  haue  hereunto  fett  my  hand  &  feale  the  third 
day  of  Aprill  1638 

Signed  fealed  & 
delivred  &  poffeffton  given 
In  the  prfence  of 

(  man  )  Aspamabough 

James-]  holding  >-hismrke  (  bow  ) 

(  hatchet.  ) 


Edward  Calcord 
Nicholas  Needham 
William  Furbar 


and 

arrow. 

his  mrke. 


Wehanownowit 

PUMMADOCKYON 

the  Sagamores  Son 


man  1 

holding  >  his  mrke. 
tomahawk.  ) 

man  holding  } 
bow  and  >•  his  m*ke. 
arrow.  ) 


Upon  the  latter  inftrument  was  indorfed,  a  year  after¬ 
wards,  the  grant  of  Watohantowet  of  his  right  to  the  fame 
and  fome  additional  lands,  in  thefe  words  :  — 


5 


Know 


34 


Memoir  of 


Know  all  men  by  thefe  prfents  that  I  Watohantowet  doe  fully  confent 
to  the  grant  within  written  &  do  yeild  up  all  my  right  in  the  faid  pur- 
chafed  lands  to  the  ptys  wthin  written  In  witneffe  whereof  I  haue  here- 
vnto  fet  my  hand  the  tenth  day  of  April  1639. 

I  doe  likewife  grant  vnto  the  for  goode  confkleration  all  the  meadows  & 
grounds  extending  for  the  fpace  of  one  englifh  mile  on  the  Eaft  fide  of 
Oyfter  river.  April  10.  1639. 

Thefe  being  prfent 


Jo:  Underhill 
his  q  mrke 
Darby  Field. 


f  an 

47  Watohantowet  -<  armlefs 

(  man 


his  mrke. 


It  was  a  matter  of  courfe  that  Wheelwright,  before  leaving 
Bofton  for  the  purpofe  of  eftablifhing  himfelf  in  the  almoft 
untrodden  wildernefs  beyond  the  Merrimac,  fhould  have  had 
an  underftanding  that  fuch  of  his  friends  as  were  willing  to 
fhare  his  fortunes  would  follow  him  at  the  earlieft  prac¬ 
ticable  moment.  Accordingly,  we  find  included  as  grantees 
in  the  conveyances  from  the  Indians  his  two  brothers-in-law, 
Samuel  Hutchinfon  and  Auguftine  Storre,  and  John  Comp¬ 
ton  and  Nicholas  Needham,  one  or  both  his  late  parifhion- 
ers,  all  of  whom,  probably,  had  a  part  in  the  formation  of 
the  new  colony.  And  already,  before  the  opening  of  the 
fpring,  he  had  gathered  the  nucleus  of  a  plantation,  no  lefs 
than  fix'  Englifhmen  being  on  the  fpot  to  attefl  his  purchafe 

from 


47  The  name  Watohantowet  was  un¬ 
accountably  mifread  “  Watchanowet  ” 
by  Farmer,  and  is  fo  given  in  1  New 
Hampfhire  Hift.  Soc.  Collections,  147. 
The  name  of  Pummadockyon,  on  the 
face  of  the  fame  inftrument,  was  in  like 
manner  changed  into  “  Tummadock- 
yon  and  the  two  perfons  have  thus 
gone  mifnamed  into  hiftory.  There 


were  other  miftakes  made  in  tranfcrib- 
ing  the  deeds,  one  of  which  is  of  con- 
fequence.  In  the  firft  deed,  the  latter 
part  of  the  defcription  heretofore 
printed,  “fo  to  goe  into  the  Countrey 
north-Weft  thirty  miles  as  far  as  the 
eajle  linef  fhould  read,  “  as  far  as 
oyfter  riuer .” 


35 


Wheelwright . 


from  the  natives,  —  James  Wall,  William  Cole,  Lawrence 
Copeland,  Edward  Colcord,  Nicholas  Needham,  and  Wil¬ 
liam  Furber,  —  moft  if  not  all  of  whom  became  adfual 
fettlers. 

The  able-bodied,  energetic,  felf-reliant  Wheelwright  was 
admirably  fitted  to  lead  the  enterprife  of  planting  a  fettle- 
ment  in  the  wildernefs.  And  little  time  elapfed  before  he 
was  furrounded  by  a  company  of  followers  large  enough  to 
infure  the  fuccefs  of  his  projedl,  and  embracing  men  abun¬ 
dantly  qualified  to  fecond  him  in  his  endeavors.  They  laid 
the  foundations  of  their  future  home  in  orderly  and  perma¬ 
nent  fafhion.  The  lands  purchafed  from  the  native  proprie¬ 
tors  were  from  the  outfet  held  by  the  grantees  in  truft  for 
the  whole  body  of  the  fettlers  and  as  their  property.  At 
firffc  a  portion  only  of  the  foil  was  allotted  to  them,  accord¬ 
ing  to  fome  fixed  proportion,  and  other  parts  were  after¬ 
wards,  from  time  to  time,  difpofed  of  by  the  town  to  fup- 
ply  the  needs  of  new-comers.  The  names  of  more  than 
thirty  men  appear  in  the  firfb  affignment  of  (hares  of  land. 
In  the  divifion  of  the  uplands,  Wheelwright  received  “  80 
acers,  one  end  butting  upon  the  river  Eaftward,  &  the  other 
end  running  into  the  majne,  fix  fcore  poole  in  Length.” 
And  in  the  apportionment  of  marfh-land,  there  was  allotted 
“  to  or  paftor  8  acers  3  quarters  bee  it  more  or  leffe.”48 

Sufficient  places  of  fhelter  were  among  the  firffc  needs  of 
the  immigrants,  and  muff  foon  have  been  provided,  in  fome 
rude  fafhion,  at  leaft,  for  the  accommodation  of  the  gentler 

fex. 

Exeter  Records,  from  which  moft  of  the  fadts  concerning  the  early  hiftory 
of  the  place  have  been  derived. 


Memoir  of 


fex.  Wheelwright’s  wife,  with  his  children,  and  her  mother, 
Mrs.  Sufanna  Hutchinfon,  then  a  widow,  left  Maffachufetts 
in  feafon  to  reach  the  embryo  village  on  the  Squamfcot  in 
the  early  fpring  of  1638; 49  and  little  doubt  can  be  enter¬ 
tained  that  they  were  attended  or  foon  followed  by  the 
families  of  the  other  hufbands  and  fathers,  who  had  taken 
up  their  abode  there. 

Among  a  body  of  men,  of  whom  moft  were  earned;  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  Puritan  church,  and  not  a  few  had  been  perfe¬ 
cted  for  their  religious  fentiments,  headed  by  a  minister  of 
remarkable  learning,  power,  and  piety,  it  was  to  be  expedled 
that  no  delay  would  be  tolerated  in  making  ready  for  Suit¬ 
able  and  regular  gofpel  worfhip.  Accordingly,  we  find  that 
a  church  was  gathered  the  firft  feafon.50  A  place  of  worfhip 
was  built,  whofe  fite  was  on  the  northern  fkirt  of  the  prefent 
village  of  Exeter,  and  was  begirt,  in  the  manner  of  that  day, 
with  a  yard,  ufed  as  a  place  of  fepulture.  Its  location  is 
fixed,  as  well  by  human  bones  which  have  fince,  from  time 
to  time,  been  exhumed  there,  as  by  the  name  of  “  Meeting- 

houfe 


40  1  Savage’s  Winthrop,  *259. 

50  Ibid.  *281.  In  December,  1638, 
Wheelwright  and  eight  others  applied 
to  the  Bolton  church  for  dlfmiffion 
therefrom  to  the  church  at  Exeter, 
which  was  granted  the  fixth  of  the 
following  January.  The  records  of  the 
firft  church  in  Bolton  contain  this  en¬ 
try  :  “6  of  nth  moneth,  1638.  This 
day  difmiffions  granted  to  or  Brethren 
Mr  John  Wheele  wright,  Richard  Mor- 
rys,  Richard  Bulgar,  Philemon  Por- 
mort,  Ifaac  GrolTe,  Chriltopher  Marfhall, 
George  Baytes,  Thomas  Wardall  & 
Willyam  Wardall,  vnto  ye  Church  of 
Chrilt  at  ye  ffalls  of  Pafchataqua,  if 


they  be  rightly  gathered  &  ordered.” 
And  that  no  queltion  could  be  raifed 
refpedting  the  “rightful  gathering  and 
ordering”  of  that  church  would  feem 
to  be  fufficiently  proved  by  the  follow¬ 
ing  unconditional  adtion  of  the  Bolton 
church,  lefs  than  two  months  later : 
“3  of  the  Ist  mo.  1639.  This  day 
granted  to  thefe  filter  vnto  ye  fore- 
named  church  at  ye  ffalls  now  called 
Exeter;  Sufanna  Hutchinfon, widdowe, 
Mary,  ye  wife  of  Mr  Wheelwright, 
Lenora  y  wife  of  Richard  Morrys, 
Henry  Elkin,  our  brother,  and  to  Mary 
his  wife  orfiltar.” 


IF heelwright.  3  7 

houfe  Hill,”  that  for  a  long  time  clung  to  a  flight  elevation 
adjacent. 

If  the  great  objedl  of  the  authorities  of  Maffachufetts  in 
ridding  themfelves  of  Wheelwright  and  his  followers  had 
been,  as  fome  writers  now  contend,  to  protect  their  colony 
from  the  danger  of  civil  commotion,  it  would  furely  feem 
that  their  purpofe  was  accomplifhed  when  thofe  dreaded 
intruders  had  withdrawn  from  the  jurifdidtion,  and  eflab- 
liflied  themfelves  elfewhere.  But  there  was  a  feeling  againfl: 
them  which  was  not  fated  by  their  expulflon,  but  grudged 
them  a  friendly  reception  in  their  diflant  retreat.  In  Sep¬ 
tember,  1638,  the  General  Court  of  Maffachufetts  diredfed 
the  governor  to  write  to  the  people  of  Pafcataqua,  taxing 
them  with  unneighborly  conduct  in  aiding  Wheelwright  to 
begin  a  plantation  there,  when  he  had  been  caffc  out  from 
the  Bay ;  and  the  governor  prepared  and  forwarded  a  letter 
of  the  deflred  import.51 

Such  a  communication  was  certain  to  reach  the  ears  of 
the  ftruggling  company  at  Exeter,  and  muft  naturally  have 
had  the  effedl  of  eflranging  them  farther  than  ever  from  the 
government  of  Maffachufetts.  The  jealous  feeling  thus  en¬ 
gendered  was  manifefted  in  repeated  inflances  afterward. 
It  is  likely  that  it  gave  the  tone  to  the  notification,  which,  in 
the  early  part  of  1639,  Wheelwright  forwarded  to  the  au¬ 
thorities  of  the  Bay,  that  the  fettlers  of  Exeter  had  bought 
of  an  Indian  (Wehanownowit)  a  tradl  of  land,  which  included 
Winicowet,  now  Hampton,  and  that  the  purchafers  intended 
to  lot  it  out  into  farms,  unlefs  Maffachufetts  could  fhow  a 
better  title.52 

This 

51  1  Savage’s  Winthrop,  *291,  *292.  52  Ibid.  *290. 


38  ■  Memoir  of 

This  was  a  home-thruft  at  their  fouthern  neighbors,  who 
had  even  then  begun  to  nourifh  the  ambition  for  enlarging 
their  territory,  which  involved  them  afterwards  in  protradted 
difficulty  and  litigation,  and  who  had  already  fet  up  a  claim 
to  Winicowet  itfelf.  They,  therefore,  in  their  reply  to 
Wheelwright,  complained  of  the  interference  with  lands, 
which  they  alleged  came  within  their  charter,  or,  at  leaft, 
had  been  taken  poffeffion  of  by  them  when  vacant  two  years 
before.  They  alfo  laid  down  the  law  in  regard  to  the  Indi¬ 
ans’  title  to  the  foil,  much  as  it  has  always  been  accepted 
fince  ;  that  .they  had  “  only  a  natural  right  to  fo  much  land 
as  they  had  or  could  improve,  fo  as  the  reft  of  the  country 
lay  open' to  any  that  could  or  would  improve  it.” 

The  Exeter  proprietors,  in  reply,  ftill  claimed  the  lands  by 
virtue  of  their  purchafe  from  the  natives.  But  the  Maffa- 
chufetts  rulers  had,  in  the  mean  time,  afcertained  by  adtual 
exploration  that,  by  a  fomewhat  artificial  conftrudtion  of  the 
language  of  their  charter,  it  might  be  held  to  include  the 
whole  of  the  Pafcataqua  country,  including  not  only  Wini¬ 
cowet,  but  Exeter  alfo.  So  they  rejoined  that,  though  they 
ftill  held  that  their  prior  poffeffion  was  good  againft  the 
Indian  title,  yet  they  were  content  to  reft  their  claims  upon 
their  patent,53  underftanding  that  the  people  of  Exeter  made 
no  pretenfions  to  any  lands  which  fell  therein.  The  little 
controverfy  appears  to  have  been  terminated  by  the  occupa¬ 
tion  of  Winicowet,  later  in  the  fame  feafon,  by  a  company 
under  the  authority  of  Maffachufetts. 

The  feeble  fettlements  of  New  Hampfhire  now  languifhed 
for  want  of  a  general  government.  John  Mafon,  the  pat¬ 
entee 


63  1  Savage’s  Winthrop,  *303. 


39 


W heelwright. 


entee,  had  died  in  1635,  and  no  fteps  had  been  taken  by  his 
heirs  towards  the  organization,  under  a  Tingle  head,  of  the 
detached  plantations  on  the  Pafcataqua  and  its  branches. 
It  is  not  ftrange,  therefore,  that  the  people  of  the  older 
towns,  tired  of  the  experimental  felf-rule,  which  had  failed  to 
give  them  confideration  abroad  or  quiet  at  home,  were  anx¬ 
ious  to  take  refuge  under  the  ftrong  arm  of  the  adjacent 
colony.  The  inhabitants  of  Dover  and  its  vicinity,  in  1639, 
made  application  to  be  received  under  the  jurifdidtion  of 
Maffachufetts,  and  fatisfadlory  terms  of  union  were  agreed 
upon  ;  but  for  Tome  caufe  the  junction  was  not  effected  till 
two  or  three  years  later.  The  people  of  Exeter  made  alfo 
a  propofal  of  like  character ;  but  not  relifhing  the  terms  of¬ 
fered,  and  poffibly  having  fome  mifgivings  about  the  wifdom 
of  putting  themfelves  in  the  power  of  Maffachufetts,  they 
“  repented  themfelves,”  and  withdrew  their  application.54 

Neceffity  fometimes  makes  laws,  if  fhe  oftener  ignores 
them.  As  the  population  of  Exeter  increafed  in  numbers, 
and  came  to  include  thofe  who  fpecially  needed  the  reftraints 
of  rule,  fome  form  of  civil  conflitution  became  indifpenfable. 
A  combination,  as  it  was  called,  for  felf-government  was 
drawn  up  by  Wheelwright,  and  figned  by  himfelf  and  the 
members  of  the  church  and  other  inhabitants,  in  the  follow¬ 
ing  terms :  — 

Whereas  it  hath  pleated  the  lord  to  moue  the  heart  of  our  Dread  Sover- 
aigne  Charles,  by  the  grace  of  god  king  of  England,  Scotland,  France  & 
Ireland,  to  grant  licence  &  liberty  to  fundry  of  his  fubjedts  to  plant  them 
felves  in  the  Wefterne  partes  of  America:  Wee  his  loyall  fubjedts,  brethren 
of  the  church  of  Exceter,  fituate  &  lying  vpon  the  riuer  of  Pifcataquacke, 
wth  other  inhabitants  there,  confidering  wth  our  felves  the  holy  will  of  god 

and 


54 


1  Savage’s  Winthrop,  *319. 


40 


Memoir  of 


and  our  owne  neceffity  that  we  fhould  not  Hue  wthout  wholefome  lawes  & 
ciuil  govern  me*  amongft  vs,  of  wh  we  are  altogether  deftitute,  doe  in  the 
name  of  chrift  &  in  the  fight  of  god,  combine  our  felves  together  to  ere<5t 
&  fet  vp  amongft  vs  fuch  Governement  as  fhall  be,  to  our  belt  difcerning, 
agreeable  to  the  will  of  god ;  prof  effing  our  felves  fubjebts  to  our  Sover- 
aigne  Lord  King  Charles,  according  to  the  liberty's  of  our  Englifh  Colony 
of  the  Maffachufets,  &  binding  our  felves  folemnely  by  the  grace  &  helpe 
of  chrift  &  in  his  name  &  feare,  to  fubmit  our  felves  to  fuch  godly  &  chrif- 
tian  laws  as  are  eftablifhed  in  the  Realme  of  England,  to  our  beft  knowl¬ 
edge,  &  to  all  other  fuch  lawes  wh  fhall  vpon  good  grounds  be  made  & 
inabted  amongft  vs  according  to  god,  y*  we  may  liue  quietly  &  peaceablely 
together  in  all  godlynefs  and  honefty : 


Mon:  5th,  d.  4th,  1639. 

John  Whelewright, 
Augustine  Storre, 

Thomas  Wight, 

William  Wantworth, 

Henry  Elkins, 

his  mark 

George  X  Walton, 
Samuell  Walker, 

Thomas  Pettit, 

Rallf  Hall, 

his  mark 

Robert  X  Soward, 
Richard  Bullgar, 
Christopher  Lawson, 

his  mark 

George  X  Barlow, 
Richard  Moris, 

Nicholas  Needham, 

Thomas  Willson, 

his  mark 

George  X  Ruobone, 
Henry  Roby, 

WlLLIA  WENBOURNE, 

5a  This  Combination,  after  being  ex¬ 
ecuted,  was  ‘‘at  the  inftant  requeft  of 


his  mark 

Thomas  X  Crawley, 

Chr.  Helme, 

his  mark 

Darby  X  Ffeild, 

his  mark 

Robert  X  Read, 

Edward  Rishworth, 

his  mark 

Ffrancis  X  Mathews, 

his  mark 

William  X  Coole, 

his  mark 

James  X  Walles, 

Thomas  Levitt, 

Edmond  Littlefeeld, 

his  mark 

John  X  Crame, 

his  mark 

GODFRYE  X  DEAREBORNE, 

Philemon  Pormortt, 

Thomas  Wardell, 

his  mark 

Willia  X  Wardell, 

his  mark 

Robert  X  Smith.55 

In 

fome  of  the  brethren,”  fuperfeded  by 
another  agreement,  for  the  fame  pur- 


41 


l 


Wheelwright . 

In  conformity  with  this  declaration,  bearing  date  exactly 
one  hundred  and  thirty-feven  years  before  the  aufpicious 
Fourth  of  July  on  which  our  National  Independence  was 
proclaimed,  the  little  colony  of  Exeter  affumed  a  republican 
form  of  government,  made  choice  of  its  own  rulers,  and 
enabled  a  code  of  laws  characterized  by  good  fenfe,  fore- 
caft,  and  equity,  as  may  be  feen  from  a  brief  fynopfis  of  fome 
of  them. 

All  the  inhabitants,  prefent  or  abfent,  having  lots  in  the 
town,  were  made  liable  to  contribute  towards  defraying  the 
public  charges,  according  to  their  proportions  of  land,  cattle, 
or  other  privileges. 

Highways  were  ordered  to  be  laid  out,  “  three  poole  in 
width ;  ”  the  lands  were  required  to  be  fenced,  and  compen- 
fation  was  directed  to  be  made  for  all  damage  done  by  cattle 
or  fwine. 

No  one  was  allowed  to  fet  fire  to  the  woods,  fo  as  to  defiroy 
the  feed  of  the  cattle,  or  occafion  other  mifchief ;  every  man 
muft  fell  fuch  trees  in  his  lot  as  were  offenfive  to  his  neigh¬ 
bor  ;  no  one  was  permitted  to  hoard  corn  in  a  time  of 
fcarcity. 

All  creeks  were  to  be  free  for  fifhing ;  the  miller’s  toll  was 
fpecifically  reftrided ;  no  inhabitant  was  allowed  to  fell  to 
the  Indians  powder,  fiiot,  warlike  weapons,  fack,  or  other 
ftrong  waters,  or  to  demand  of  them  for  corn  a  greater  price 

than 

pofe,  but  fet  forth  in  different  terms,  as  here  given,  was,  on  the  fecond  of 
Afterwards  the  latter  agreement  was  April,  1640,  re-eftablifhed  and  con- 
thought  to  contain  fome  expreffions  firmed.  —  See  1  New  Hampjhire  Pro- 
capable  of  being  underftood  in  a  fenfe  vincial  Papers ,  13T.  A  fac-fimile  of 
fomewhat  derogatory  to  the  allegiance  the  inftrument  is  given  in  the  Went- 
due  to  the  king,  and  was  in  its  turn  worth  Genealogy, 
revoked,  and  the  original  Combination, 

6 


42 


Memoi r  of 

than  four  fhillings  the  bufhel ;  and  one  difcreet  perfon  was 
to  have  licenfe  to  fell  wine  and  ftrong  waters  to  the  Englifh 
by  retail. 

Suitable  tribunals  were  establifhed  to  carry  thefe  whole- 
fome  regulations  into  effedf,  and  trial  by  jury  was  provided  for. 

The  hand  of  Wheelwright  can  hardly  be  miftaken  in  thefe 
judicious  provifions  for  the  future  welfare  of  his  plantation, 
efpecially  in  thofe  defigned  to  fecure  the  aborigines  from 
impofition  and  intemperance.  He  had  able  coadjutors,  too, 
whofe  practical  knowledge  and  experience  undoubtedly  con¬ 
tributed  in  no  fmall  degree  to  the  fuccefs  of  this  primary 
legiflation.56 

Under  this  voluntary  fyftem  of  government,  the  fettle- 
ment  of  Exeter  flourifhed  and  took  permanent  root.  Its 
numbers  increafed  ;  the  land  was  fubdued  to  the  plough  ; 
grift-mills  were  fet  in  motion  by  the  waters  of  the  falls  ; 
and  good  order  appears  to  have  prevailed  in  a  degree  un- 
ufual  in  a  frontier  hamlet.  Wheelwright  purfued  the  even 
tenor  of  his  ways,  as  paftor  of  the  little  church,  making  his 
prefence  felt,  we  cannot  doubt,  in  every  matter  of  intereft  to 
his  people,  and  winning  each  fucceffive  year  a  greater  fhare 
of  their  confidence  and  attachment. 

It  is  a  matter  of  neceffity  that  a  republic,  even  though  it 
confift  of  but  a  few  fcore  inhabitants,  fhould,  in  procefs  of 
time,  come  to  contain  two  parties.  In  Exeter,  the  divifion 

appears 

50  William  Wentworth  was  one  of  fubfequently  attorney-general  of  Rhode 
them,  —  a  man  of  education  and  ability,  Itland.  Philemon  Pormort,  matter  of  the 
and  in  after  life  a  preacher  of  the  Gof-  Botton  Grammar  School,  and  Edward 
pel.  He  was  the  ancettor  of. a  long  Rifhworth,  who  afterwards  filled  impor- 
line  of  governors  and  men  of  promi-  tant  offices  in  York  County,  were  alfo 
nence.  Richard  Bulgar  was  another,  of  Wheelwright’s  company. 


43 


Wheelwright . 


appears  to  have  occurred  on  the  queftion  of  a  union  with 
Maffachufetts.  That  colony,  having  afferted  a  claim  under 
her  patent  to  the  whole  country  of  the  Pafcataqua,  the  other 
New  Hampfhire  towns,  as  early  as  1641,  formally  fubmitted 
to  her  jurifdidlion.  But  the  old  diftruft  lingered  in  Exeter. 
The  petition  of  her  citizens  to  be  received  under  the  Bay 
Government  was  delayed  till  1643.  And  it  was  even  then 
couched  in  terms,  or  bafed  on  fome  conditions,  diftafteful  to 
thofe  to  whom  it  was  addreffed,  being  the  work,  apparently, 
of  the  early  partifans  of  Wheelwright.  The  Maffachufetts 
General  Court  declined  to  accede  to  the  petition,  “  taking  it 
ill  that  Exeter,  which  fell  within  their  patent,  fhould  Capitu¬ 
late  with  them.” 

Another  petition  was  immediately  prepared,  and  offered 
at  the  fame  feffion  of  the  Legidature,  for  the  fame  objedl,  but 
phrafed  more  acceptably.  Of  its  twenty-two  fubfcribers, 
only  three  were  figners  of  the  former  petition,  and  but  four 
members  of  the  combination.  The  fecond  petition  was 
granted  without  hefitation  ;  and  Exeter,  originally  an  afylum 
for  fugitives  from  the  feverities  of  the  Bay  Government,  now 
to  that  government  gave  her  voluntary  allegiance.57 

It  is  not  ftrange  that  Wheelwright,  and  the  others  who 
were  ftill  under  the  ban  of  Maffachufetts,  watched  with 
intereffc  her  gradual  extenfion  of  jurifdidfion  over  the  New 

Hampfhire 

57  1  N.  H.  Provincial  Papers,  168,  fecond  petition,  rejedted  the  nomina- 
170.  The  firft  petition  is  fo  mutilated  tions  it  contained,  for  clerk  of  the  writs 
that  of  its  contents,  fave  the  names  of  and  commiffioners  of  fmall  caufes. 
fome  of  the  figners,  nothing  is  left.  Of  The  perfons  nominated  were  alfo  fign- 
the  thirteen  names  remaining  upon  it,  ers  of  the  favored  petition  ;  but,  inftead 
all  but  two  were  affixed  to  the  Com-  of  them,  the  Court  appointed  men  who 
bination  of  1639.  It  was  a  curious  fubfcribed  the  firft  petition  and  the 
ftroke  of  policy  that  the  General  Court  Combination  alfo. 
of  Maffachufetts,  while  approving  the 


44 


Memoir  of 

Hampfhire  towns.  Common  prudence  required  that  they 
fhould  be  feeking  out  a  place  of  fecurity,  to  which  they 
could  remove  when  the  occafion  required.  They  found  it 
in  the  uninhabited  region  north-eaft  of  the  Pafcataqua.  In 
September,  1641,  Samuel  Hutchinfon  and  Nicholas  Need¬ 
ham,  who  were  parties  with  Wheelwright  to  the  Indian  pur- 
chafe  of  1638,  began  to  profpedfc  that  country,  and,  on  the 
twenty-fourth  of  the  month,  obtained  from  Thomas  Gorges, 
fuperintendent  of  the  affairs  of  Sir  Ferdinando  Gorges  in  his 
province  of  Maine,  a  licenfe  to  occupy  and  improve  the  ter¬ 
ritory  which  afterwards  conftituted  the  townfhip  of  Wells.58 
Some  of  the  land  was  claimed  by  one  Stratton  and  others, 
fo  that  Gorges  was  unwilling  at  that  time  to  make  an  abfo- 
lute  conveyance  of  it. 

Soon  afterwards,  Edmund  Littlefield,  Edward  Rifhworth, 
and  others  of  the  old  adherents  of  Wheelwright,  removed 
from  Exeter  to  the  new  locality,  and  began  to  clear  the  foil 
and  adapt  it  to  human  occupation.  Wheelwright  himfelf 
deemed  it  judicious  to  follow,  before  the  authority  of  Maffa- 
chufetts  began  to  be  exerted  at  the  falls  of  the  Squamfcot, 
and  probably  eftablifhed  himfelf  in  Wells  in  the  fpring  of 
1643,  though  it  may  have  been  a  few  months  earlier. 
Thomas  Gorges,  in  April  of  that  year,  conveyed  to  him  a 
trad!  of  land,  containing  about  four  hundred  acres,  on  the 
eafierly  fide  of  the  Ogunquit  River,  and,  on  the  fourteenth 
of  the  fucceeding  July,  made  to  him  and  others  the  follow¬ 
ing  grant,  no  doubt  in  fulfilment  of  an  underftanding  with 
Hutchinfon  and  Needham  two  years  before.  The  claim  of 
Stratton  and  others  had  in  the  mean  time  been  found 
nugatory :  —  Witneffeth 

58  Bourne’s  Hiftory  of  Wells  and  Kennebunk,  9. 


45 


Wheelwright . 

Witneffeth  thefe  prefents  that  I  Thomas  Gorges  Deputy  Governor  of 
the  Province  of  Mayne  according  to  the  power  given  unto  me  from  Sir 
Ferdinando  Gorges,  Knight,  Lord  proprietor  of  the  faid  province,  have 
for  divers  good  caufes  and  confiderations  in  and  thereunto  moving,  given 
and  granted  unto  Mr.  John  Wheelright  minifter  of  God’s  word,  Mr.  Henry 
Boads,  and  Mr.  Edward  Rifhworth  of  Wells,  full  and  abfolute  power  to 
alot  bounds  and  fett  forth  any  lott  or  bounds  unto  any  man  that  thall 
come  to  inhabit  in  the  plantation,  themfelves  paying  for  any  land  they 
hold  from  Sir  Ferdinando  Gorges  five  (hillings  for  every  hundred  acres 
they  make  ufe  of,  the  reft  five  (hillings  for  every  hundred  acres  that  (hall 
be  allotted  unto  them  by  the  faid  Mr.  John  Wheelright,  Henry  Boads  and 
Edward  Rifhworth.  The  bounds  of  the  plantation  to  begin  from  the 
North  Eaft  fide  of  Ogunquitt  River,  to  the  South  Weft  fide  of  Kennebunk 
River,  and  to  run  eight  miles  up  into  the  country  and  in  cafe  differences 
arife  between  the  faid  Mr.  John  Wheelright,  Henry  Boads  and  Edward 
Rifhworth  concerning  the  admiffion  of  any  man  into  the  plantation,  or  of 
bounding  any  land,  the  faid  difference  (hall  be  determined  by  the  agent 
or  agents  of  Sir  Ferdinando  Gorges  to  whom  full  power  is  referved  of 
admitting  any  one  into  the  aforefaid  limitt.  Given  under  my  hand  and 
feal  at  armes  this  14th  July,  1643. 

Tho.  Gorges. 

This  grant  was  formally  confirmed  by  Richard'  Vines, 
deputy-governor,  and  the  other  members  of  a  court  held  at 
Saco,  on  the  fourteenth  of  Auguft,  1644.  But  a  {mail  num¬ 
ber  of  lots  appear  ever  to  have  been  affigned  to  fettlers  under 
its  authority,  however.59 

Wheelwright,  immediately  after  his  arrival  in  Wells, 
eredfed  a  houfe  of  fufficient  capacity  to  accommodate  his 
own  family,  together  with  his  mother-in-law,  Mrs.  Hutchin- 
fon,  who  accompanied  them,  and  fubfequently  died  there.00 

Upon 

59  Bourne’s  Hift.  Wells,  &c.,  10,  14.  years  afterward,  upon  the  claim  that  it 

60  Bourne’s  Hift.  Wells,  &c.,  49,  37.  was  built  for  Wheelwright  by  his  par- 
This  may  have  been  the  houfe  about  ifhioners,  to  be  ufed  as  a  parfonage, 
which  a  fuit  at  law  was  brought,  five  and  fo,  when  he  left  it,  remained  their 

property. 


4.6  Memoir  of 

Upon  a  flream  near  his  dwelling  he  built  a  faw-mill,  and 
thus,  with  charadleriflic  prudence  and  forecafl,  fecured  one 
of  the  few  fources  of  profit  afforded  by  the  new  country.61 
A  confiderable  number  of  his  Exeter  parifhioners  accom¬ 
panied  him  to  Wells,  fo  that  a  church  was  at  once  inflituted 
there,  of  which  he  was,  of  courfe,  the  pallor.  It  deferves  to 
be  mentioned  to  his  credit,  alfo,  that  the  people  whom  he 
left  at  Exeter  entertained  the  kindeffc  feelings  toward  him, 
and  were  flow  to  relinquifli  the  expectation  that  he  might 
return  to  them.62 

It  is  not  known  that  Wheelwright  entertained  the  idea  of 
refuming  his  refidence  in  Exeter,  though  Wells  could  have 
been  no  very  attractive  home  to  him.  The  mere  fadl  that 
it  was  on  the  confines  of  civilization  was,  to  a  perfon  of  his 
vigorous  conftitution  and  experience  in  pioneer  life,  the  leaft 
of  its  demerits.  But  th£re  was  no  kindred  companionfhip 
for  him  outfide  the  little  circle  of  thofe  who  had  followed 
him  thither.  The  few  remaining  inhabitants  were  generally 
ignorant  and  uncultivated,  if  not  adlually  degraded.63  No 
doubt  the  Cambridge  graduate,  educated  in  the  fociety  of 
fcholars  and  gentlemen,  found  it  an  unpromifmg  portion  of 
his  Mailers  vineyard  to  labor  in.  But  his  views  of  duty 

were 

property.  See  letter  of  Henry  Boad  cerning  it,  as  in  the  cafe  referred  to  in 
to  John  Winthrop,  1  Mafs/Hift.  Soc.  note  60. 

Collections  (5th  feries),  358.  The  62  The  records  of  Exeter  fhow, 
Court  records  of  York  County  fhow  among  other  fads  to  fupport  this  ftate- 
nothing  of  the  fuit,  and  we  have  no  ment,  that  a  grant  of  marfh-land  was 
clew  to  the  ifiue  of  it.  made  to  Wheelwright  on  the  feven- 

61  Bourne’s  Hift.  Wells,  &c.,  49.  teenth  of  June,  1644,  upon  the  con- 
judge  Bourne  dates  that  Wheelwright  dition  that  “  he  doth  Com  amongft  us 
had  a  lawfuit  againft  John  Littlefield  againe.” 

in  regard  to  the  mill;  but  the  records  03  Bourne’s  Hift.  Wells,  &c.,  235,  &c. 
of  the  county  are  equally  filent  con- 


47 


were  not  of  the  pliant  kind,  which  would  be  defledted  by 
fuch  confiderations.  There  is  no  reafon  to  doubt  that  he 
devoted  himfelf  cheerfully  and  loyally  to  his  work,  fo  long 
as  he  miniftered  to  the  little  flock  about  him. 


He  had,  probably,  long  underflood  that  it  would  not  be 
difficult  to  make  his  peace  with  Maffachufetts.  In  Septem¬ 
ber,  1642,  while  he  was  yet  in  Exeter,  upon  fome  application 
made  in  his  behalf  to  the  authorities  of  the  Bay  colony,  they 
had  gracioufly  replied  that  if  “  hee  himfelfe  petition  the  O  at 
Boflon,  they  fhall  have  power  to  grant  him  fafe-condudl  ” 
into  their  jurifdidtion.64  It  does  not  appear  that  he  made 
any  advances,  however,  at  that  time.  But  it  is  plain  that 
fome  influence  was  at  work  in  Maffachufetts  to  bring  about 
a  reconciliation ;  for,  on  the  tenth  of  May,  1643,  the  General 
Court  again,  without  any  folicitation  on  his  part,65  granted 
to  him  permifflon  to  viflt  the  colony  for  fourteen  days,  at 
any  time  within  the  enfuing  three  months.66  The  banifhed 
divine  upon  this  repaired  to  the  fcenes  of  his  earlier  labors 
and  trials,  and  “  fpake  with  divers  of  the  miniflers,”  who 
were  fo  well  fatisfied  with  his  expofltion  of  his  feelings  and 
views  that  they  determined  to  ufe  their  influence  to  obtain 
a  reverfal  of  the  fentence  againA  him.67  There  is  a  ftrong 

probability 


04  2  Maffachufetts  Colonial  Records, 
32- 

03  It  is  true  that  Hubbard,  in  his 
Hiffory  of  New  England,  365,  ftates 
that  Wheelwright  “  wrote  to  the  Gov¬ 
ernor  for  leave  to  come  into  the  Bay  ;  ” 
but  Winthrop,  who  could  not  have 
failed  to  mention  it  had  the  fadt  been 
fo,  fays  nothing  of  the  fort.  Hubbard 
is  notorioufly  inexadt,  and  in  this  in- 
ftance  contradidts  himfelf;  for  he  gives 


the  letter  in  which  he  fays  Wheelwright 
requefted  permiffion  to  vifit  Maffachu¬ 
fetts,  and  the  letter  not  only  contains 
nothing  of  the  kind,  but  bears  date 
months  after  the  permiffion  was 
granted. 

06  2  Mafs.  Colonial  Records,  37. 

07  Hubbard’s  Hift.  New  England, 
366.  Hubbard  here  gives  a  fadt  that 
muff  have  been  within  his  perfonal 
knowledge. 


Memoir  of 


probability  that  they  counfelled  him  in  what  tone  to  frame 
an  appeal  to  the  Maffachufetts  government  for  that  purpofe. 
The  refult  of  the  conference  may  be  gathered  from  the  fol¬ 
lowing  letter,  which  he  addreffed  to  the  Legiflature  a  few 
days  after  his  return  to  Wells  :  — 

Right  Worshipful,  —  Upon  the  long  and  mature  confideration  of 
things,  I  perceive  that  the  main  difference  between  yourfelves  and  fome 
of  the  reverend  elders  and  me  in  point  of’  juftification  and  the  evidencing 
thereof,  is  not  of  that  nature  and  confequence  as  was  then  prefented  to  me 
in  the  falfe  glafs  of  fatan’s  temptations  and  mine  own  diftempered  paffions, 
which  makes  me  unfeignedly  forry  that  I  had  fuch  an  hand  in  thofe  fharp 
and  vehement  contentions  raifed  thereabouts  to  the  great  difturbance  of 
the  churches  of  ChrifL  It  is  the  grief  of  my  foul  that  I  ufed  fuch  vehement, 
cenforious  fpeeches  in  the  application  of  my  fermon,  or  in  any  other  writ¬ 
ing,  whereby  I  reflected  any  difhonor  upon  your  worfhips,  the  reverend 
elders,  or  any  of  contrary  judgment  to  myfelf.  It  repents  me  that  I  did 
fo  much  adhere  to  perfons  of  corrupt  judgment  to  the  countenancing  of 
them  in  any  of  their  errors  or  evil  pradtices,  though  I  intended  no  fuch 
thing ;  and  that  in  the  fynod  I  ufed  fuch  unfafe  and  obfcure  expreffions, 
falling  from  me  as  a  man  dazzled  with  the  buffetings  of  fatan,  and  that  I 
did  appeal  from  mifapprehenfion  of  things.  I  confefs  that  herein  I  have 
done  very  finfully,  and  do  humbly  crave  pardon  of  this  honored  date.  If 
it  fhall  appear  to  me  by  scripture  light  that  in  any  carriage,  word,  writing, 
or  a<5tion,  I  have  walked  contrary  to  rule,  I  fhal!  be  ready,  by  the  grace  of 
God,  to  give  fatisfadtion  ;  thus  hoping  that  you  will  pardon  my  boldnefs, 
I  humbly  take  leave  of  your  worfhip,  committing  you  to  the  good  provi¬ 
dence  of  the  Almighty,  and  ever  remain  your  worfhip’s  in  all  fervice  to  be 
commanded  in  the  Lord. 

J.  Wheelwright. 

Wells  (7),  10  43. 

The  letter  reached  Boflon  on  the  fourth  of  the  fucceeding 
October,  and  upon  it  “  the  Court  was  very  well  inclined  to 
releafe  the  banifhment  ”  of  its  author.  It  was  accordingly 

ordered  that  he  fhould  have  a  fafe-conduCt  to  attend  the 

/ 

next 


49 


Wheelwright. 


'  next  feffion  of  the  Court,  if  he  defired.  This  was  in  effedl  a 
fummons  or  invitation  for  him  to  plead  his  caufe  in  perfon 
before  that  tribunal.  Of  this,  Governor  Winthrop  gave  him 
notice  by  letter,  which  elicited  the  following  reply:68  — 

Right  Worshipful,  —  I  have  received  the  letter  wherein  you  fignify 
to  me  that  you  have  imparted  my  letter  to  the  honorable  court,  and  that 
it  finds  good  applaufe,  for  which  I  rejoice  with  much  thankfulnefs.  I  am 
very  thankful  to  your  worfhip  for  the  letter  of  fafe  condudt  which  I  for¬ 
merly  received,  as  likewife  for  the  late  a6t  of  court  granting  me  the  fame 
liberty  in  cafe  I  defire  letters  to  that  end.  I  fliould  very  willingly,  upon 
letters  received,  exprefs  by  word  of  mouth,  openly  in  court,  that  which  I 
did  by  writing,  might  I  without  offence  explain  my  true  intent  and  mean¬ 
ing  more  fully  to  this  effedt ;  that,  notwithstanding  my  failings,  for  which 
I  humbly  crave  pardon,  yet  I  cannot  with  a  good  confcience  condemn 
myfelf  for  fuch  capital  crimes,  dangerous  revelations,  and  grofs  errors,  as 
have  been  charged  upon  me,  the  concurrence  of  which  (as  I  take  it)  make 
up  the  very  fubftance  of  the  caufe  of  all  my  fufferings.  I  do  not  fee  but 
in  fo  mixt  a  caufe  I  am  bound  toufe,  may  it  be  permitted,  my  juft  defence 
fo  far  as  I  apprehend  myfelf  to  be  innocent,  as  to  make  my  ccnfeflion 
where  I  am  convinced  of  any  delinquency ;  otherwife  I  fhall  feemingly 
and  in  appearance  fall  under  guilt  of  many  heinous  offences,  for  which  my 
confcience  doth  acquit  me.  If  I  feem  to  make  fuit  to  the  honorable  court 
for  relaxation  to  be  granted  by  an  a6t  of  mercy  upon  my  foie  confeffion,  I 
muft  offend  my  confcience  ;  if  by  an  a 6i  of  justice  upon  mine  apology  and 
lawful  defence,  I  fear  left  I  fhall  offend  your  worfhips.  I  leave  all  things  to 
your  wife  and  godly  confideration,  hoping  that  you  will  pardon  my  fim- 
plieity  and  plainnefs,  which  I  am  forced  unto  by  the  power  of  an  over¬ 
ruling  confcience.  I  reft  your  worfhip’s  in  the  Lord. 

Wells  (i),  1-43.8®  J.  WHEELWRIGHT. 

The  condinT  of  Wheelwright  in  making  this  conceffion 
to  the  bigoted  power  which  had  ejected  him  from  his  pulpit 

and 

68  2  Savage’s  Winthrop,  *163.  Thefe  Hubbard,  which  has  been  underflood 
letters  of  Wheelwright  are  given  as  to  have  been  taken  from  Winthrop, 
they  appear  in  Winthrop,  though  they  69  i.e.,  March  1,  1644. 
differ  fomewhat  from  the  verfion  of 


7 


5<d  Memoir  of 

and  his  home,  and  proclaimed  him  an  outcaft,  has  been  the 
fubjeCl  of  fome  animadverfion.  It  has  even  been  pro¬ 
nounced  a  fawning  attempt  to  reftore  himfelf  to  favor,  and 
a  difhonorable  facrifice  of  his  independence.  But  this  cen- 
fure  is  not  borne  out  by  the  faCts.  There  is  abfolutely  no 
ground  for  believing  that  he  expeded  to  gain  any  advantage 
of  a  temporal  nature  from  being  reftored  to  the  freedom  of 
Maffachufetts.  On  the  other  hand,  the  candor  with  which 
he  admitted  the  faults,  of  which  reflection  had  rendered  him 
fenflble,  and  the  confcientious  defire  he  manifefted  to  make 
amends  for  them,  are  worthy  of  all  refpeCt. 

The  language  of  his  ’firft  letter,  which  has  probably  led  to 
the  mifconflruCtion  of  his  motives,  may  have  been  influenced 
by  the  advice  of  his  clerical  brethren,  as  we  have  feen.  Its 
extravagant  tone  of  felf-condemnation  was,  however,  entirely 
in  keeping  with  the  flyle  employed  by  devout  men  at  that 
period,  and,  indeed,  long  afterward.  Such  exuberance  of 
fpeech  is  to  be  received,  at  the  prefent  day,  like  Oriental 
profefflons  of  hofpitality,  at  a  heavy  difcount.  Wheelwright 
himfelf,  upon  further  conflderation,  or  poflibly  upon  fome 
inkling  from  Winthrop’s  letter  that  the  General  Court 
might  incline  to  take  his  effuflve  advances  more  literally 
than  he  intended,  found  it  neceffary  to  define  his  pofition 
anew,  and  wrote  the  fecond  letter  to  guard  againft  the  mif- 
conftruftion  of  the  firft.  Graceful  as  it  is  for  a  penitent  to 
flyle  himfelf  the  chiefeft  of  flnners,  it  is  awkward  to  have 
another  indorfe  the  epithet.70 

In 

70  Backus,  in  i  Hiffc.  N.  E.  153,  fays,  of  us  but  what  will  acknowledge  in 
fignificantly,  that  Wheelwright’s  fecond  general  terms  that  our  church  is  im- 
letter  would  make  one  think  of  Bifhop  perfect,  though  when  we  come  to  par- 
Burnet’s  remark,  that  “there  are  none  ticulars  we  are  always  in  the  right.” 


5i 


W heelwright . 


In  the  fecond  letter  Wheelwright  refted  his  claim  for 
acquittal  upon  the  ground  of  juftice  rather  than  of  mercy. 
It  cannot  be  faid  that  his  overtures  involved  any  defertion 
of  principle,  or  cringing  to  the  difpenfers  of  favors.  He 
made  a  manly  confeffion  of  his  error,  to  bring  about  recon¬ 
ciliation  and  peace,  as  was  eminently  becoming -his  facred 
calling. 

Upon  the  receipt  of  Wheelwright’s  fecond  letter,  Win- 
throp  again  wrote  him,  that,  although  the  fentence  of  banifh- 
ment  might,  perhaps,  be  remitted  without  his  prefence,  yet 
that  was  queftionable ;  and  recommended  him  to  appear 
before  the  Court  in  perfon.71  But* this  Wheelwright  was 
not  difpofed  to  do.  So  the  matter  refted  until  the  twenty- 
ninth  of  May,  1644,  when  the  Legiflature  ordered  “that  Mr. 
Wheelwright  (upon  pticular,  folemne  and  ferious  acknowl¬ 
edging  &  confeffion  by  letter,  of  his  evill  carriages  &  of  ye  Crts 
iuftice  upon  him  for  them)  hath  his  banifhnk  taken  of,  & 
is  received  in  as  a  member  of  this  comonwealth.” 72 

If  Wheelwright  erred  in  preferring  his  requeft  with  excef- 
five  humility,  it  cannot  be  faid  that  the  Legiflature  mani- 
fefted  overmuch  magnanimity  in  granting  it.  They  per¬ 
verted  the  honeft  import  of  his  language,  and  extended  to 
him  their  grace  on  grounds  that  he  never  admitted.  But 
they  had  the  “  giant’s  ftrength,”  and  there  was  nothing  left 
for  him  but  to  accept  his.  re-enfranchifement,  cum  onere . 

The  period  of  Wheelwright’s  refidence  at  Wells  was 

* 

marked  alfo  by  the  publication  of  two  notable  pamphlets 
upon  the  fubjedt  of  the  Antinomian  Controverfy  of  1637  in 
Maffachufetts,  and  the  fhare  of  the  Mount  Wollafton  paftor 

therein. 

72  2  Mafs.  Colonial  Records,  67. 


71  2  Savage’s  Winthrop,  *164. 


52 


Memoir  of 


therein.  The  one  was  iffued  in  London  in  the  early  part  of 
1 644,  under  this  title,  “  A  Short  Story  of  the  Rife,  reign  and 
ruin  of  the  Antinomians ,  Familijis  &  Libertines  that  in- 
feCted  the  Churches  of  New  England  ;  And  how  they  were 
confuted  by  the  Affembly  of  Minifters  there  :  As  alfo  of  the 
Magiffcrates  proceedings  in  Court  againffc  them.  Together 
with  Gods  ftrange  and  remarkable  judgments  from  Heaven 
of  fome  of  the  chief  fomenters  of  thefe  Opinions  ;  And  the 
lamentable  death  of  Ms.  Hutchinfonh  It  purported  to  be 
the  work  of  “  one  that  was  an  eye  and  ear  witneffe  of  the 
carriage  of  matters  there,”  and  confifted  of  an  introduction 
and  preface  by  the  Rev.  Thomas  Weld;73  a  catalogue  of 
the  erroneous  opinions  condemned  by  the  Cambridge  Synod 
of  1637 ;  an  account  of  the  proceedings  of  the  General  Court 
againft  Wheelwright  and  others  ;  and  a  “  Brief  Apology  ” 
for  the  fame.  It  may  be  characterized,  in  general,  as  a  very 
bitter  and  partifan  production,  even  for  that  day.  The 
authorfhip  of  the  body  of  the  work  has  been  the  fubjeCt  of 
difcuffion  among  antiquaries.74  Much  of  it  is  agreed  on  all 
hands  to  have  been  the  work  of  Winthrop,  and  the  better 
opinion  feems  to  be  that  it  muft  all  be  attributed  to  him.75 

Wheelwright 

Hon  James  Savage  and  “  Hutchinfon  ” 
(underftood  to  be  the  nom  de  plume  of 
J.  Wingate  Thornton,  Efquire),  in  1 
Hiftorical  Magazine,  321,  and  2  do.  22, 
170. 

73  1  Felt’s  Eccles.  Hift.  312,  n.  534. 
—  “The  Antinomian  Controverfy  of 
1637,”  by  the  Rev.  John  A.  Vinton,  in 
the  Congregational  Quarterly  for  July, 
1873,  P-  4°9i  n-  (2),  where  the  ftate- 
ments  of  contemporary  writers  are 
cited.  From  the  language  of  Wheel¬ 
wright  in  the  fecond  title,  of  Mercurius 
Americanus,  and  in  the  work  itfelf,  it 


73  Weld  was  the  firft  minifter  of 
Roxbury,  and  lived  in  this  country 
from  1632  to  1641,  in  which  latter  year 
he  went  to  England  as  agent  for  Maffa- 
chufetts.  He  never  returned,  but  re¬ 
mained  there  till  his  death,  in  1662. 
In  his  preface  to  the  Short  Story,  he 
difclaimed  the  authorfhip  of  the  main 
part  of  the  work,  and  his  character  as 
a  Chriftian  minfter,  efpecially  in  the 
abfence  of  any  adequate  motive  for 
falfehood,  leaves  little  room  to  queftion 
the  truthfulnefs  of  his  ftatement. 

74  See  the  communications  of  the 


may 


53 


Wheelwright . 

Wheelwright  probably  received  intelligence  of  the  publi¬ 
cation  of  this  harfh  and  one-fided  verfion  of  his  former  opin¬ 
ions  and  conduCt  at  not  far  from  the  fame  time  that  he  was 
apprifed  of  the  unwarranted  terms  in  which  the  Court  had 
characterized  his  application  for  remiffion  of  fentence.  He 
could  hardly  have  helped  feeling  flung  by  the  acrimonious 
revival  of  the  defunCl  controverfy,  after  the  lapfe  of  feven 
long  years,  and  at  the  very  time  when,  by  the  encourage¬ 
ment  of  influential  inhabitants  of  the  Bay,  he  was  making 
advances  for  a  reconciliation.  He  had  friends  and  relatives 
in  England,  and  was  unwilling  that  they  fhould  take  their 
impreffions  of  his  debut  in  the  new  world  from  the  groffly 
unfair  flatements  of  his  opponents.  He  therefore  deter¬ 
mined  to  publifh  an  anfwer  to  their  afperfions,  for  the  pur- 
pofe  of  refcuing  his  character  from  mifreprefentation.  It 
was  no  fmall  undertaking  for  him  to  bring  out  even  a  traCt 
of  a  dozen  leaves  in  London  ;  but  he  obtained  the  aid  of 
friends,  no  doubt,  to  fupervife  the  publication  ;  and,  in  1645, 
his  reply  was  iffued,  under  the  title  of  “  Mercurius  Ameri- 
canus.”  As  it  is  reproduced  in  the  prefent  volume,  it  is 
only  neceffary  to  fay  of  it  here  that,  in  tone  and  temper,  it  is 
inconteflably  fuperior  to  the  “  Short  Story ;  ”  and,  while 
devoted  efpecially  to  the  vindication  of  its  authors  doctrinal 
views,  agreeably  to  the  fchool  of  polemics  then  in  vogue,  it 
contains  fome  keen  retorts  upon  his  detractors,  and  indicates 
a  mind  trained  to  logical  acutenefs,  and  imbued  with  the 
learning  of  the  times.  In  this  literary  paffage-at-arms, 

though 

may  be  inferred  that  he  fuppofed  Weld  wilds  of  Wells,  he  was  not  at  all  likely 
to  be  the  author  of  the  Short  Story  ;  to  have  any  authentic  information  on 
but,  living  as  the  former  did,  in  the  the  fubjedt. 


54 


Memoir  of 

though  Wheelwright  dealt  no  foul  blow,  yet  affuredly  his 
antagonifls  did  not  carry  off  the  honors  of  the  field. 

For  two  years  after  this  controverfial  epifode,  Wells  was 
the  fcene  of  Wheelwright’s  labors.  He  continued,  no  doubt, 
as  long  as  he  remained  there,  to  occupy  the  pofition  of  fpir- 
itual  guide  of  the  little  church ;  but  the  lack  of  records  leaves 
the  particulars  of  his  doings  in  obfcurity.  We  cannot  fup- 
pofe,  indeed,  that,  if  we  could  penetrate  the  veil  of  years, 
many  fabts  of  importance  or  general  interefl  would  be  dis¬ 
coverable.  The  monotony  of  border  life,  among  a  limited 
population,  mainly  abforbed  in  providing  for  their  daily 
neceffities,  could  be  broken  by  few  incidents  worthy  of 
prefervation. 

A  new  home  now  beckoned  to  the  wildernefs-preacher. 
Hampton,  with  its  fertile  clearings  and  its  rich  falt-meadows, 
poffeffed  natural  features  which  must  have  vividly  reminded 
Wheelwright  of  the  fcenes  of  his  early  life.  The  place  had 
been  fettled  for  fome  years,  and  the  people  were  feeking 
for  a  colleague  to  be  united  in  the  paftoral  relation  with 
their  religious  teacher,  the  Rev.  Timothy  Dalton.  They 
were  pleafed  with  Wheelwright,  and  invited  him  to  the 
pofition.  He  was  in  no  way  difmclined  to  the  propofal, 
and  in  the  fpring  of  1647  repaired  to  Hampton,76  and 
entered  into  a  written  agreement  with  a  committee  of  the 
church  and  town,  refpebting  the  terms  of  his  fettlement, 
which,  as  ch arable riftic  of  the  parties  and  the  times,  is 
deemed  worthy  of  infertion  :  — 

The 

70  The  town  records  of  Hampton  each  of  which  the  name  of  Wheel- 
contain  this  and  the  fubfequent  brief  wright  is  affixed  in  his  own  hand, 
agreement  on  the  fame  fubjedt,  to 


55 


Wheelwright. 


The  12  daye  2  m°  1647  : 

The  Church  of  Jefus  Chrift  at  Hampton  haueing  ferioufly  confidered 
the  great  paines  &  labours  that  the  reverente  &  well-beloued  Mr 
Tymothy  Dalton  haue  taken  among  them  in  the  worke  of  the  miniftry 
euen  beyond  his  abilitie  or  ftrength  of  nater  :  And  haueing  upon  sollemne 
feeking  of  God  fettled  upon  the  reverent  &  well-beloued  Mr  John 
Whelewright  of  Wells  as  a  help  in  the  worke  of  the  lord  with  the  fayd 
Mr  Dalton  our  prfent  &  faithfull  Teacher :  And  haue  given  the  fayd 
Mr  Whelewright  a  calle  to  that  end  with  the  confent  of  the  hole  towne : 
The  which  the  fayd  Mr  Whelewright  doe  except  off  according  unto  God : 
And  thefe  propotions  following  are  agreed  upon :  &  fubfcribed  unto 
by  the  fayd  Mr  Whelewright  for  his  prt :  &  the  fayd  church  with  the 
hole  towne  for  ther  prt :  who  doth  by  thefe  prfents  promife  &  oblige  them- 
felues  to  fulfill  &  prforme  the  same  :  — 

FirfL  That  in  cafe  the  church  of  hampton  fend  for  Mr  Whelewright 
from  Wells  to  be  their  Pafter  or  teacher  They  fhall  beare  thofe  charges 
of  the  tranfportation  of  himfelf  :  familie  &  goods  to  Hampton. 

2.  That  the  fayd  Mr  Whelewright  fhall  haue  a  convenient  houfe 
provided  for  him  &  his  familie  to  dwell  in  for  the  firft  yeare  by  the  fayd 
church. 

3.  That  the  fayd  Mr  Whelewright  fhall  haue  a  convenient  houfe-lott  as 
likewife  the  ferme  which  was  lately  Mr  Batchilers  given  &  confermed  to 
him  &  his  heires  for  ever  upon  his  ordination  &  continuence  among  us 
—  But  if  the  fayd  Mr  Whelewright  fhall  afterword  remoue  himfelf 
without  libertie  from  the  fayd  church  —  That  then  the  fayd  ferme  fhall 
remaine  to  the  towne  of  Hampton  for  ever  as  their  owne  proprietie  to 
dispofe  of :  — 

4.  That  the  fayd  Mr  Whelewright  fhall  haue  yearly  &  every  yeare  payd 
to  him  forty e  pound  for  his  paines  among  them  as  longe  as  he  is  their 
paftor  or  Teacher  —  excepting  only  fome  extraordinary  hand  of  God  in 
waye  of  alteration :  —  The  which  fayd  401  is  to  be  payd  in  corne  cattle  or 
other  good  comodities  quarterlye  by  fome  whom  the  fayd  church  fhall 
apoynt :  by  euen  &  equall  propotions. 

In  cafe  the  church  fend  for  Mr  Whelewright  with  a  veffel  to  tranfport 
him  any  time  within  two  mounths  after  the  date  hereof  with  an  abfolute 

promife 


Memoir  of 


promife  of  ordination  before  the  laffc  of  the  feuenth  mounth  next  following 
—  Then  the  fayd  Mr  Whelewright  fhall  accordingly  com  unto  them  if 
god  phnitt :  And  if  the  fayd  Mr  Whelewright  fhall  r.efufe  ordination 
lawefully  tendered  he  fhall  beare  the  charge  of  his  tranfportatior\  & 
receive  nothing  for  his  time  among  them :  And  in  cafe  the  fayd  Church 
refufe  to  give  him  ordination  before  the  end  of  the  7  m°  next  abfolutely 
promifed  him  —  he  the  fayd  Mr  Whelewright  fhall  be  payd  for  his  tranf- 
portation  §1  for  the  time  he  is  a  Teacher  among  them  &  haue  the  ferme 
before  mentioned  to  him  &  his  heires  for  ever  —  &  haue  libertie  to 
depart  from  them  upon  fuch  refufeall. 

In  cafe  the  fayd  church  fhall  fend  the  fayd  Mr  Whelewright  worde  to 
Wells  any  time  within  two  mounths  that  they  cannot  ordaine  him  Paftor  or 
Teacher  among  them  —  then  both  the  fayd  church  &  the  fayd  Mr 
Whelewright  fhall  be  free  from  all  former  ingagements  contained  in  this 
wrighting. 

John  Whelewright.77  John  Moulton.  Will:  Marston. 

Jeffery  Mingy.  Will  :  Moulton. 

William  Samborne. 

Willia  Howard. 

In  the  name  of  y°  reft. 


A  month  later  the  church  voted  to  fulfil  their  part  of  the 
preliminary  agreement,  in  the  following  terms  :  — 


The  15  :  3  m0  1647  : 

It  is  voted  by  the  Church  of  Hampton  that  they  fhall  &  will  feijd  a 
boat  for  Mr  Whelewright  to  Wells  to  tranfport  Mr  Whelewright  &  his 
familie  &  alfo  do  promife  to  give  him  ordination  according  as  is  ex- 
preffed  in  the  couenant  between  them  to  the  utmoft  of  their  indever 
according  unto  god,  within  the  time  therin  mentioned. 

I  accept  of  this  vote.  pr  Willia  Howard  in  the  name 

John  Whelewright.  of  the  Church. 

No 

77  The  obferving  reader  will  notice  Combination,  the  peculiar  fpelling  of 
here,  as  in  the  fignature  to  the  Exeter  the  name — PVkelewright.  Its  poffef- 

for 


57 


Wheelwright. 


No  time  was  loft  in  eftablifhing  the  new  minifter  in  his 
new  home.  That  he  was  ordained  (or  inftalled)  over  the 
fociety  on  the  twenty-fourth  of  June  following,  is  fairly 
inferrible  from  the  entries  upon  the  town  records,  which 
fhow  that  the  interefting  event  of  the  receipt  of  his  falary 
occurred  annually  on  that  day  thereafter]  By  his  removal 
to  Hampton,  he  muft  have  found  himfelf  in  many  refpedls 
more  eligibly  fituated  than  at  Wells.  The  people  of  his 
charge  were  more  numerous,  and,  probably,  in  the  main, 
more  intelligent,  than  thofe  he  had  quitted.  They  were 
certainly  better  able  to  provide  for  his  fuitable  maintenance, 
which  was  no  fmall  confideration  to  a  man  of  fifty-five,  with 
a  goodly  family.  He  was  within  the  reach  of  more  con¬ 
genial  fociety.  No  longer  in  a  frontier  clearing,  an  interval 
of  but  few  miles  feparated  him  from  profeffional  brethren 
and  laymen  of  culture  and  focial  refinement.  To  a  univer- 
fity-bred  clergyman,  for  years  fhut  out  from  fuch  com- 
panionfhip,  the  boon  muft  have  been  peculiarly  welcome. 

The  condudl  of  Wheelwright’s  parifhioners  at  Hampton 
evinces  their  appreciation  of  his  deferts  as  a  minifter,  and 
their  readinefs  to  teftify  it  by  fubftantial  tokens.  Before  he 
had  been  three  years  with  them,  the  town  ‘voted  to  give 
him  in  fee,  the  farm  of  two  hundred  acres  that  had  at  firft 
been  granted  to  him  conditionally,  and  “  the  prudential 
men  ”  conveyed  it  to  him  by  deed,  dated  the  fourteenth  of 
February,  1650.  Subfequently,  on  the  twenty-eighth  of 
December,  1654,  the  town  made  an  addition  of  twenty-five 
per  centum  to  his  annual  falary. 

But 

for  uniformly  wrote  it  in  this  manner  to  this  country,  he  adopted  the  orthog¬ 
in  early  life,  and  up  to  the  time  of  his  raphy  which  has  ever  fince  prevailed, 
return  to  England.  After  he  came  back 


t 


8 


Memoir  of 


But  Wheelwright,  perhaps,  valued  more  highly  ftill  the 
fervice  which  his  people  rendered  him,  in  procuring  from 
the  General  Court  of  Maffachufetts  what  he  muft  have 
conceived  to  be  a  tardy  adt  of  juftice  to  himfelf.  The 
ftatements  contained  in  the  “  Short  Story,”  affuming  to  be 
an  authoritative  expofition  by  the  Maffachufetts  officials  of 
their  dealings  with  him,  and  the  grounds  thereof,  were  no 
doubt  commonly  accepted  as  fuch  in  England,  and  had 
been  indorfed  in  the  writings  of  the  Rev.  Samuel  Ruther- 
*  ford,  a  Scottifh  divine  of  fome  eminence.78  Wheelwright 
had,  probably,  long  felt  that  fome  reparation  was  due  to 
him  for  the  unfriendly  attitude  in  which  the  authorities  of 
the  Bay,  through  thofe  ftatements,  and  by  their  con- 
ftruftion  of  his  application  for  remiffion  of  fentence,  ap¬ 
peared  to  ftand  towards  him.  No  doubt  his  townfmen 
were  aware  of  his  feeling,  and  were  anxious  to  have  every 
poffible  imputation  upon  the  character  of  their  paftor 
wiped  away.  On  the  firft  of  May,  1654,  they  held  a 
meeting,  at  which  they  drew  up  and  fubfcribed  a  petition 
to  the  Legiflature,  for  the  purpofe  of  eliciting  a  teftimonial 
from  that  body  in  his  favor,  and  then  ordered  “  that  the 
petition  framed  and  figned  att  the  prefent  metting  for  the 
vindication  of  Mr.  Wheelwrights  name,  fhould  be  prefented 
to  the  next  Generali  court.”  79 

This  was  done  without  lofs  of  time,  and  on  the  third  of 

May 

78  The  work  is  entitled  “  A  Survey  opinions  condemned  by  the  Cambridge 
of  the  Spirituall  Antichrist,”  and  was  Synod  into  the  lefs  ftartling  number 
publithed  in  London,  1648.  Chapters  15  of  53,  he  gravely  declares  that  Wheel- 
and  16  are  devoted  to  a  caftigation  of  wright  and  Mrs.  Hutchinfon  were  the 
the  Antinomians  and  Familifts  of  New  firft  authors  of  them  all.  —  Rutherford's 
England.  A  fpecimen  brick  of  his  Survey ,  176. 
curious  edifice  will  fuffice.  After  con-  79  Hampton  records, 
denting  the  gift  of  the  82  erroneous 


59 


Wheelwright . 


May  the  Court  declared,  in  anfwer  thereto,  that  they  were 
“not  willing  to  recall  thofe  vncomfortable  differences  that 
formerly  paffed  betwixt  this  Court  and  Mr  Whelwright, 
concerning  matters  of  religion  or  pradiife,  nor  do  they 
know  what  Mr  Rutherford  or  Mr  Wells  hath  charged 
him  with,  yet  they  judg  meete  to  certifie  that  Mr  Whel¬ 
wright  hath  long  fince  giuen  fuch  fatisfadlion  both  to  the 
Court  &  elders  generally  as  that  he  is  now,  &  fo  for 
many  years  hath  bin,  an  officer  in  ye  church  at  Hampton 
wthin  or  jurifdidlion,  &  yt  w<hout  offence  to  any  fo  far  as  we 
know  &  as  we  are  informed,  he  hath  bin  a  vfeful  &  pfi table 
inftrument  of  doinge  much  good  in  that  church.” 80 

Cotton  Mather,  in  his  “  Magnalia,” 81  ftates  that  Wheel¬ 
wright  in  the  fame  year  “  publifhed  a  vindication  of  himfelf 
againft  the  wrongs  that  by  Mr.  Weld  and  by  Mr.  Ruther¬ 
ford  had  been  done  unto  him.  In  this  vindication  he  not 
only  produces  a  fpeech  of  Mr.  Cotton,  ‘  I  do  conceive  and 
profefs  that  our  brother  Wheelwright’s  dodirine  is  according 
to  God  in  the  points  controverted,’  but  alfo  a  declaration 
from  the  whole  General  Court  of  the  colony,  figned  by 
the  fecretary,  Auguft  24,  1654,  upon  the  petition  of  Mr. 
Wheelwright’s  church  at  Hampton,  in  which  declaration 
they  profefs,  that  hearing  that  Mr.  Wheelwright  is  by  Mr. 
Rutherford  and  Mr.  Weld  rendered,  in  fome  books  printed 
by  them,  as  heretical  and  criminous,  they  now  fignify  that 
Mr.  Wheelwright  hath,  for  thefe  many  years,  approved 
himfelf  a  found,  orthodox  and  profitable  minifter  of  the 
gofpel,  among  the  churches  of  Christ.” 

From 

80  3  Mafs.  Colonial  Records,  344.  81  Book  VII.,  chap.  iii.  fee.  3. 


6o 


Memoir  of 


From  the  beft  information  obtainable,  the  “  vindication  ” 
appears  never  to  have  been  printed, .  but  to  have  been 
publifhed  only  in  manufcript;  it  is  improbable,  therefore, 
that  its  contents  will  ever  be  exadfly  known.82 

Whether  it  was  in  anticipation  of  a  return  to  England 
that  Wheelwright  defired  to  have  his  pofition  thus  fet  right, 
we  have  no  means  of  knowledge;  but,  either  in  1655  or  in 

41 

the  early  part  of  1656,  he  made  a  voyage  thither.83  The 
extraordinary  events  which  had  revolutionized  the  govern¬ 
ment  of  the  old  country  had  not,  of  courfe,  paffed  without 
awakening  the  deepeft  intereff  in  the  new.  The  execution, 
of  King  Charles,  the  ufurpation  of  the  fovereign  power  by 
a  commoner  by  birth  and  an  Independent  in  religion,  the 
fubverfion  of  the  old  hierarchy,  and  the  freedom  of  the 
pulpit  to  Puritans,  —  thefe  were  occurrences  which,  if 
not  fully  approved  by  the  intelligent  of  New  England, 
feemed,  at  lead  to  many,  aufpicioils  for  her  future  fortunes. 
To  Wheelwright,  the  acceffion  to  pofitions  of  eminence  of 
two  of  his  perfonal  friends  —  .Cromwell,  in  whofe  company 
he  had  trodden  the  claffic  halls  of  Cambridge,  and  Vane, 

by 


82  No  allufion  to  the  “vindication” 
is  known  earlier  than  that  in  the  Mag- 
nalia  ;  which  circumftance  alone  would 
argue  that  it  never  appeared  in  print. 
Mather  evidently  had  no  copy  of  it,  for 
he  mifquoted  the  language  of  the  Gen¬ 
eral  Court  fo  widely  as  to  make  it  evi¬ 
dent  that  he  relied  merely  upon  recol¬ 
lection.  Savag^,  who  remarked  upon 
“the  fcarcity  of  the  traCt”  in  a  way  to 
lead  his  readers  to  fuppofe  he  had 
feen  it,  evidently  had  not,  for  he  fim- 
ply  repeated  Mather’s  account  of  it,  in 
all  its  inaccuracy.  —  i  Sav.  Wint. 


*215  n.  (1.)  Inquiries  at  thea  principal 
libraries  of  Americana  in  New  Eng¬ 
land,  and  a  communication  inferted-in 
the  English  Notes  and  Queries  by  my 
friend  the  Rev.  Mr.  Slafter  (though  it 
led  to  a  fearch  of  the  vaft  collections 
of  the  Britifh  Mufeum,  of  the  Bodleian 
Library  at  Oxford,  and  of  the  Univer- 
fity  Library  at  Cambridge),  have  failed 
to  elicit  any  further  light  refpeCting  this 
production. 

83  His  laft  receipt  of  falary  in  Hamp¬ 
ton  was  in  midfummer  of  1655. 


Wheelwright. 


by  whofe  fide  he  had  withftood  the  fhock  of  religious 
perfecution  in  Maffachufetts  —  muft  have  been  peculiarly 
interefling.  Each  of  them  in  his  department  had  wielded 
the  refources  of  their  powerful  country  with  the  hand  of  a 
matter,  and  both  flood  among  the  foremoft  men  of  their 
age.  It  was  natural  that  the  paftor  of  Hampton  fhould 
yearn  once  more  to  vifit  the  land  of  his  nativity,  to  behold 
with  his  own  eyes  the  great  changes  that  had  befallen  her 
in  the  fcore  of  years  which  had  paffed  fince  his  laft  view  of 
her  receding  fliores. 

He  did  not,  on  quitting  Hampton,  diffolve  his  connection 
with  his  fociety,  for  it  is  unlikely  that  he  had  any  definite 
plan  with  refpedl  to  the  duration  of  his  abfence.84  When 
he  arrived  in  England,  he  found  his  two  powerful  friends, 
who  were  but  recently  contending  fide  by  fide  for  political 
and  religious  liberty,  ‘eflranged  and  hoftile.  Vane  had 
retired  from  public  life,  while  Cromwell  feemed  to  be 
dreaming  of  a  regal  fceptre.  Fortunately  for  our  New 
England  vifitor,  their  fundered  .paths  prevented  neither  of 
them  from  giving  him  a  cordial  welcome.  He  became  a 
particular  favorite  with  Cromwell,  during  the  fhort  re¬ 
mainder  of  the  life  of  that  eminent  perfonage.85 

It  is  much  to  be  regretted  that  the  correfpondence  which 

Wheelwright 


84  In  December,  1656,  the  people  of 
Hampton  voted  to  employ  an  affiftant 
for  the  Rev.  Mr.  Dalton,  their  teacher, 
until  they  could  fee  “  how  God  would 
difpofe  of  them  in  refpedt  of  their  paf¬ 
tor  ”  (Wheelwright). 

85  Hutchinfon,  in  1  Hitt.  Maff.  177 
(3d  Am.  ed.),  advances  the  opinion  that 
Cromwell,  who  muft  have  been  aware 
of  Vane’s  friendfhip  for  Wheelwright, 


was  diflembling  when  he  pretended  to 
be  his  friend  alfo.  Without  inquiring 
whether  the  great  ufurper  in  his  dif- 
truft  of  Vane  muft  neceffarily  have 
included  one  who  was  in  no  way  in¬ 
volved  in  the  political  movements  of 
the  time,  it  is  thought  fufficient  in  the 
text  to  ftate  the  matter  as  it  has  been 
generally  underftood. 


62 


Memoir  of 

Wheelwright  is  known  to  have  maintained,  at  this  time, 
with  his  cifatlantic  friends,  has  difappeared.  It  would,  doubt- 
lefs,  have  afforded  intereffcing  views  of  the  Protestor  as  feen 
by  New  England  eyes,  and  would  have  fupplied  information, 
which  is  not  known  to  be  elfewhere  attainable,  of  Wheel- 
wright’s  whereabout  and  occupation  during  the  years  of  his 
later  refidence  in  England.  Though  a  letter  which  he  then 
wrote  to  the  church  at  Hampton  was  preferved  to  the 
commencement  of  the  prefent  century,  as  we  are  informed 
on  good  authority,86  yet  only  a  portion  of  it  is  now  to  be 
found,  —  the  foie  remaining  veftige  of  its  author’s  epiftolary 
writings  during  his  abfence.  We  give  the  fragment  which 
was  luckily  preferved  by  Hutchinfon.87  It  bears  date  the 
twentieth  of  April,  1658. 

I  have  lately  been  at  London  about  five  weeks.  My  Lord  Protedfor 
was  pleated  to  fend  one  of  his  guard  for  me,  with  whom  I  had  difcourfe 
in  private  about  the  fpace  of  an  hour.  All  his  fpeeches  teemed  to  me 
very  orthodox  and  gracious,  no  way  favoring  fectaries.  He  fpake  very 
experimentally  to  my  apprehenfion  of  the  work  of  God’s  grace  ;  and 
knowing  what  oppofition  I  met  withal  from  tome  whom  I  fliall  not  name, 
exhorted  me  to  perfeverance  in  thefe  very  words  as  I  remember.  “  Mr. 
Wheelwright,  Hand  faft  in  the  Lord,  and  you  fhall  fee  that  thefe  notions 
will  vanifh  into  nothing,”  or  to  that  effedt.  Many  men,  efpecially  the 
fectaries,  exclaim  againft  him,  with  open  mouths ;  but  I  hope  he  is  a 
gracious  man.  I  faw*  the  Lord  Mayor  and  Sheriff  with  their  officers 
carry  fundry  of  the  fifth  monarchy  men  to  prifon,  as  Mr.  Cam,  Mr.  Day, 
with  others  who  ufed  to  meet  together  in  Colman  ftreet  to  preach  and 
pray  againft  the  Lord  Protedtor  and  the  prefent  power. 

The  people  of  Wells  and  the  adjoining  places  had  occa- 

•  fion, 

86  Eliot’s  Biographical  Didtionary,  87  i  Hift.  Mafs.,  178,  n. 
article  “  Wheelwright.” 


Wheelwright. 


lion,  in  1658,  to  petition  Cromwell  to  confirm  the  jurifdififion 
of  Maffachufetts  over  them.  It  was  a  pleafing  evidence  of 
their  regard  for  their  former  pafior,  as  well  as  a  recognition 
of  the  influential  pofition  which  he  was  underftood  to  hold 
with  the  Protedlor,  that  in  their  petition  they  refer  to  their 
“pyous  and  reverend  friend,  Mr.  John  Wheelwright,  fome- 
time  of  us,  now  in  England,”  for  any  defired  information 
refpedfing  their  condition  and  charadler.88 

After  the  death  of  Cromwell,  it  is  probable  that  Wheel¬ 
wright  paffed  the  mofl  of  the  remaining  time  of  his  flay  in 
England  among  his  relatives  in  Lincolnfiiire,  where  he  ftill 
retained  his  patrimonial  lands.  No  doubt  he  made  his 
abode  chiefly  at  Belleau,89  the  favorite  refidence  of  Sir 
Henry  Vane,  “who  had  greatly  noticed  him  fince  his 
arrival  in  the  kingdom,”  and  was  his  firm  friend.90  Vane, 
however,  was  foon  again  embarked  upon  the  flormy  fea  of 
political  life,  and  for  a  time  rode  proudly  upon  the  fummit 
of  the  billows,  wafted  apparently  by  profperous  gales.  His 
hopes  of  the  eftablifhment  of  a  permanent  fyfiem  of 
popular  government  in  his  native  land  appeared  to  be  juft 
approaching  fruition,  when  they  were  daflied  to  the  ground 
by  an  untoward  concurrence  of  unlooked-for  events,  which 
led  to  the  Refloration.  Vane  was  configned  to  imprifon- 
ment,  from  which  he  only  emerged  to  undergo  the  death 
of  a  heroic  political  martyr,  in  June,  1662. 

It  was,  probably,  not  until  this  tragical  event  had  clofed 

the 

88  Hutchinfon’s  Collection,  314.  22,  1677,  in  confideration  of  the  mar- 

89  Wheelwright  defcribed  himfalf  as  riage  of  the  latter  with  his  youngeft 
“  late  of  Belleau,  county  of  Lincoln,  daughter,  Sarah.  —  See  Suffolk  Regif 
England,”  in  a  conveyanceof  land  by  try  of  Deeds,  B.  ix.  p.  215. 

him  made  to  Richard  Crifpe,  October  90  1  Hutchinfon’s  Hift.  Mafs.,  177. 


Memoir  of 


the  career  of  the  great  man  with  whom  in  early  manhood, 
as  well  as  in  his  later  prime,  it  was  Wheelwright’s  privilege 
to  live  on  terms  of  confidence  and  friendfhip,  that  the  latter 
turned  his  face  again  towards  New  England.  He  arrived 
here,  together  with  feveral  other  minifters,  in  the  fummer 
of  1662.91  His  place  in  Hampton  had,  of  courfe,  long  before 
been  fupplied ;  but  the  people  of  the  neighboring  town  of 
Salif  bury,  who  had  known  him  in  years  pafi,  welcomed  him 
with  a  call  to  become  their  pafior,  though  he  had  now 
arrived  at  man’s  allotted  age  of  threefcore  years  and  ten. 
Vigorous  fiill,  however,  in  mind  and  body,  he  complied 
with  their  with,  and  was  inftalled  over  them  on  the  ninth  of 
December  in  the  fame  year.92 

His  people  at  once  guaranteed  him  an  honorable  fupport. 
At  a  meeting  of  the  town  held  fix  days  after  his  inftallation, 
“  It  was  concluded  &  agreed  upon  that  Revd  Mr.  John 
Wheelwright  fliall  have  for  his  maintenance  whilft  he  fhall 
continue  amongft  us  three  fcore  pounds  a  year  while  the 
new  towne  continues  as  one  with  us,  &  when  &  while  the 
new  towne 93  fliall  maintain  a  minifier  of  themfelves,  &  then 
to  have  £50  per  annum  of  the  old  towne  during  his  con¬ 
tinuance  with  them  in  the  work  of  the  minifiry,  befides  the 
accommodations  of  houfe  and  land.”  Eight  days  later,  the 
town  “  Ordered  that  there  fliall  be  about  20  acres  of  that 
meadow  which  is  commonly  called  the  elders’  cove,  allotted 
unto  the  perpetual  ufe  of  the  minifiry  for  the  old  towne  of 


Salifbury.” 


91  This  fa6t  appears  among  memo-  92  Contributions  to  the  Ecclefiaftical 
randa  of  the  Rev.  Samuel  Danforth,  in  Hiftory  of  EtTex  County,  224. 
the  MS.  record-book  of  the  church  in  93  The  “  new  towne  ”  was  Amef bury, 
Roxbury,  depofited  with  the  N.  E.  Hilt.  which  was  afterwards,  in  1668,  dulv 


Genealogical  Society,  Bolton. 


conllituted  a  feparate  townlhip. 


Wheelwright .  65 

Salifbury.”  The  townfmen  alfo  appointed  a  committee 
“  to  buy  the  widow  Morrill’s  houfe  &  houfe-lott  at  the  Old 
toun,  for  the  ufe  of  the  miniftry.” 94 

It  was  under  thefe  agreeable  conditions  that  Wheelwright 
entered  upon  the  laft,  and,  ftrange  to  fay,  the  longeft 
paftorate  of  his  varied  life.  It  might  not  unreafonably  be 
expected  that  fome  written  memorials  of  this  comparatively 
recent  period  had  been  fpared,  to  afford  an  infight  into  the 
every-day  habits  and  experience  of  the  old-time  minifter  ; 
but  every  memorandum  of  a  private  character  appears  to 
have  long  paffed  into  oblivion.  No  diary,  letters,  or  other 
writings  are  known  to  exiffc,  to  fired  light  upon  this  intereft- 
ing  phafe  of  his  life.  Even  the  records  of  the  church  of 
Salifbury  during  Wheelwright’s  incumbency  have  difap- 
peared.  The  meagre  knowledge  we  poffefs  of  his  doings 
there  is  limited  to  a  few  noteworthy  circumftances  gathered 
from  the  books  of  the  town  and  other  fcattered  fources. 

On  the  eighth  of  October,  1664,  he  was  appointed  referee 
to  determine  a  difference  between  Robert  Ring  and  the  town  ; 
an  indication,  certainly,  that  his  impartiality  and  good  judg¬ 
ment  were  held  in  favorable  eflimation.  On  the  twentieth 
of  December,  the  fame  year,  the  town  refolved  to  build  a 
new  meeting-houfe  with  all  convenient  fpeed,  which  praife- 
worthy  determination  may  have  been  carried  into  effedt, 
though  the  fubfequent  filence  of  the  records  upon  the  fub- 
jedt  renders  it  improbable.  Perhaps  it  was  this  demonftra- 
tion  that  induced  the  minifter  to  recur  to  the  promife  of  his 

people, 

94  Records  of  Salifbury ;  to  which  there,  which  are  not  credited  to  other 
we  are  indebted  for  moft  of  the  fadls  fources. 
refpedting  Wheelwright’s  refidence 

9 


66 


Memoir  of 

people,  on  hisfettlement,  tofurnifh  him  “accommodations  of 
houfe  and  land,”  which  had  not  been  performed  to  his 
fatisfadlion.  He  was  not  the  man  to  keep  filence  when 
his  dues  were  withheld,  and  it  may  be  imagined  that  he  • 
fpoke  his  mind  freely  on  this  occafion.  In  confequence 
thereof,  at  a  town  meeting  held  on  the  fixth  of  March, 
1665,  a  committee  was  chofen  to  treat  with  him.  That  he 
was  not  altogether  unreafonable  in  his  demands  is  evidenced 
by  the  fadt,  that  the  town  authorized  the  prudential  men 
“to  build  a  fide  leanter95  to  the  toun-barn  which  is  for  the 
miniltry  &  lay  a  floor  to  thrafh  on  in  the  fd  barn,  and  alfo 
to  link  a  ftone  well  for  conveniency  of  water  to  the  houfe, 
and  alfo  to  make  a  convenient  place  in  one  of  the  garrets 
for  a  library,  &  any  other  fmall  finifhing  work  which  is  not 
already  agreed  to  be  done,  &  alfo  to  make  a  new  and  fuffi- 
cient  fence  between  John  Eatons  land  and  the  towns.” 
But  the  townfmen  fubjoined  the  provifo,  with  laudable 
caution  againft  committing  themfelves  too  deeply  for  the 
future;  “This  we  do  in  our  refpedts  to  our  Revd  pallor  Mr. 
Wheelwright,  &  not  as  bound  by  covenant  thereunto.” 

The  knowledge  that  Wheelwright  poffeffed,  refpedling 
the  titles  and  boundaries  of  lands  in  the  part  of  the  country 
which  had  been  firft  occupied  under  his  obfervation,  led  to 
the  taking  of  his  teltimony,  about  this  time,  in  certain  cafes 
where  thofe  matters  came  in  queltion.  In  1663,  and  in 
1668,  he  gave  affidavits  in  regard  to  his  purchafe  of  the 
Indians’  rights  to  the  territory  about  Exeter,  copies  of 
which  were  apparently  ufed  in  the  trial  of  many  caufes. 

Thefe 


05  Lean-to  ;  a  pent-houfe. 


Wheelwright.  67 

Thefe  affidavits  have  an  important  bearing  upon  the  quef- 
tion  of  the  genuinenefs  of  the  Indian  deed  of  1629,  and 
will  be  fpecially  referred  to  in  the  chapter  of  this  work 
devoted  to  that  fubjedf. 

In  June,  1665,  Richard  Nicholls,  Sir  Robert  Carr,  George 
Cartwright,  and  Samuel  Maverick,  the  Commiffioners  ap¬ 
pointed  by  the  king  to  vifit  the  feveral  colonies  of  New 
England  to  determine  complaints  and  appeals,  and  provide 
for  the  peace  and  fecurity  of  the  country,  in  the  difcharge 
of  their  duties  proceeded  to  make  inquiry  concerning  the 
boundary  line  between  Maffachufetts  and  Mafon’s  patent  of 
New  Hampfhire.  In  connexion  with  other  teftimony,  they 
took  the  Aatement  of  Wheelwright,  to  the  effedf  that  when 
he  was  banifhed  from  Maffachufetts,  nearly  thirty  years 
before,  he  was  allowed  to  remain  unmoleffced  a  little  way 
beyond  the  “  bound-houfe  ”  as  it  was  termed,  which  was 
fituated  in  Hampton,  a  large  three  miles  north  of  the  Mer- 
rimac  River.96  The  tendency  of  the  evidence  was  to  curtail 
the  poffeffions  of  Maffachufetts,  which  the  Commiffioners 
were  well  inclined  to  do,  had  it  been  defired  by  the  inhab¬ 
itants  on  the  Pafcataqua.  The  latter,  however,  had  no 
ambition  to  affume  the  refponfibilities  of  a  feparate  govern¬ 
ment,  and  the  queftion  of  the  boundary-line  was  difmiffed 
to  the  fucceeding  century  for  final  adjuftment. 

The  life  of  Wheelwright,  apparently,  now  flowed  on  for 
feveral  fucceffive  years  in  the  even  current  which  indicated 
mutual  fatisfadiion  between  minifter  and  people.  Up  to 
June,  1670,  no  more  important  entry  refpediing  parochial 

affairs 

96  1  Belknap’s  Hift.  New  Hampfhire,  106. 


68 


Memoir  of 

affairs  is  found  upon  the  record-books  of  Salifbury  than 
the  appointment  of  a  committee  to  procure  the  digging  of 
a  new  well  for  the  parfonage.  A  year  afterwards,  the  aged 
but  ftill  adfive  paftor  is  heard  of  in  Portfmouth,  on  the 
occafion  of  the  ordination  of  the  Rev.  Jofhua  Moody,  to 
whom  he,  as  the  fenior  minifter  prefent,  gave  the  right  hand 
of  fellowfhip.  It  could  not  have  been  dreamed  by  either 
of  them  at  the  time,  that,  by  a  fmgular  parallel  of  fortune, 
the  younger  brother  was  deftined  ere  long  to  undergo  bitter 
trials  for  confcience’  fake,  even  as  the  elder  had  done  in 
years  bygone.97 

After  the  reparation  of  Amefbury  from  Salifbury,  the 
falary  of  Wheelwright  was  reduced,  according  to  the  terms 
of  his  fettlement,  by  a  fixth  part.  This  he  found  inade¬ 
quate  to  his  fupport ;  and,  after  fome  years,  as  the  town  took 
no  fteps  to  increafe  it,  his  friends  petitioned  the  County 
Court  to  make  an  order  for  the  purpofe,  as  follows :  — 

The  humble  reqst  To  the  Honored  Court  now  held  at  Saif  bury  of  we 
whofe  names  are  under  written, 

Is  that  you  would  be  pleafed  to  Confider  of  and  fo  fettle  unto  our 
reverend  paftor  Mr  John  Whellwright  an  honorable  maintenance  for  he 
haveing  had  butt  fiuety  pounds  a  yeare,  the  accommodation  excepted,  fince 
the  new  towne  were  parted  from  the  old  toune,  which  our  paftor  fays  he 
cannot  Comfortably  liue  on,  and  we  alfo  thinke  the  fame  and  are  willing 

I 

more 

97  In  1684,  Edward  Cranfield,  Gov-  real  caufe  of  this  hypocritical,  arbitrary, 
ernor  of  New  Hampfhire,  then  eredted  and  illegal  adt  is  to  be  found  in  the  fadt 
into  a  feparate  province,  under  pretence  that  Moody  rightfully  perfifted  in  call- 
that  Moody  had  violated  a  ftatute  of  ing  to  account  a  member  of  his  church 
England  in  refuting  to  adminifter  to  who  had  committed  perjury  in  a  cafe  of 
him  and  two  of  his  councillors  the  violation  of  the  cufloms  laws,  and 
ordinance  of  the  Lord’s  Supper,  after  whom  the  governor  wifhed  to  fcreen 
the  forms  of  the  Epifcopal  church,  from  cenfure. 
caufed  him  to  be  imprifoned.  The 


Wheelwright . 


more  fhould  be  allowed  him  butt  itt  cannott  be  yett  attained  to  be  done 
by  the  towne  in  generall,  and  foe  our  refuge  is  to  this  honored  Court  that 
it  may  be  done  according  to  the  law  of  God  and  the  Countrey. 

William  buswel,  Ephraim  Winsley, 

Samuel  Fellows,  fenior,  Isack  Buswel, 

John  Ilsly,  John  Severance, 

John  Gill,  John  Stevens,  fenr, 

Joseph  Ffrench,  Edward  Ffrench.98 

The  court  poftponed  the  confideration  of  the  petition  to 
the  enfuing  feffion  at  Hampton,  and  nothing  is  found  to 
indicate  its  ultimate  fate. 

Wheelwright,  as  has  already  been  intimated,  though  con- 
ftant  to  his  pafloral  duties,  was  not  inattentive  to  temporal 
concerns.  Indeed,  for  the  decent  fupport  of  his  large 
family,  he  muff  have  found  it  neceffary  to  engage  in  fome 
remunerative  occupation,  outfide  his  profeffion.  It  was 
cuftomary  and  expedled  that  a  country  minifter  fhould  eke 
out  his  falary  by  the  cultivation  of  the  foil ;  and  Wheel¬ 
wright  had  farming  lands  which  he  doubtlefs  tilled  with  his 
own  hands,  while  he  was  fettled  in  Exeter,  Wells,  Hampton, 
and  Salifbury.  He  was  alfo  interefted  in  faw-mills  in 
Wells  and  Hampton,  which  were  a  fource  of  fome  revenue. 
Thefe  poffeffions  involved  him  in  dealings  with  divers  per- 
fons,  fome  of  whom  were  delinquent  in  performing  their 
engagements.  The  confequence  was  that  Wheelwright,  who 
flood  up  manfully  for  his  rights,  was  obliged  to  have  re- 
courfe  on  feveral  occafions  to  the  ftrong  arm  of  the  law. 
The  records  of  the  court  on  the  criminal  fide  fhow  alfo 

one 

®8  Records  of  the  old  county  of  Norfolk,  at  Salem. 


jo  Memoir  of 

one  cafe  in  which  he  was  interefted.  In  1675,  Thomas 
Rawlinfon  was  prefented  for  charging  the  paftor  of  Salif- 
bury  church  with  “  inhumanitie.”  What  particular  a6l  of 
Wheelwright  he  thus  ftigmatized  cannot  with  certainty  be 
learned ;  but  it  is  very  poffible  that  it  was  the  advice  which 
the  former  is  reported  to  have  given,  fome  years  previoufly, 
in  regard  to  the  execution  of  a  cruel  fentence  againft  fome 
Quaker  women."  If  that  was  the  cafe,  the  claims  of  the 
“  higher  law  ”  were  not  recognized  by  thofe  in  authority  two 
centuries  ago;  for  Rawlinfon  was  tried  and  convidfed,  pub¬ 
licly  admonifhed  of  his  fin,  bound  over  to  good  behavior, 
and  muldted  in  cofts. 

It  would  have  been  a  wonder  if  fo  ftirring  and  refolute  a 
man  as  Wheelwright  had  fucceeded  in  wielding  the  great 
powers  which  his  pofition  gave  him  in  the,. town,  without 
making  an  enemy.  After  living  in  Salifbury  for  half  a 
generation,  it  was  his  fortune  to  come  in  collifion  with  one 
of  the  principal  members  of  his  church,  Major  Robert  Pike, 
a  man  of  ftrong  will  and  of  no  infignificant  pofition.100  The 

original 

99  The  incident  is  related  by  Bifhop,  Bifhop  fays  that  “John  Wheelwright, 
in  his  New  England  Judged,  368,  and  the  pried,  advifed  the  conltable  to  drive 
n.  (2d  ed.)  -Richard  Walderne  iffued  on,  as  his  fafeft  way.”  Perhaps  the 
a  warrant  at  Dover,  the  twenty-fecond  •  ftory  ought  to  be  taken  with  fome 
of  December,  1662,  diredted  to  the  grains  of  allowance,  as  Bifhop  had 
conltables  of  ten  feveral  towns,  requir-  little  mercy  on  the  “prielts,”  and  ac- 
ing  them  to  take  and  convey  through  cufes  the  excellent  Reyner,  of  Dover, 
faid  towns,  at  the  cart’s  tail,  three  Qua-  of  intligating  the  profecution.  Raw- 
ker  women,  whipping  them  upon  their  linfon  is  thought  to  have  been  a 
naked  backs  not  exceeding  ten  ftripes  Quaker,  which  would  account  for  his 
apiece  in  each  town.  The  cruel  order  imputing  to  Wheelwright,  as  a  fault,  an 
was  performed  with  more  or  lefs  ftridh-  adt  which  would  by  the  community 
nefs  until  the  poor  women  reached  generally,  the  court  included,  have 
Salifbury,  where  Walter  Barefoote  hu-  been  efteemed  meritorious, 
inanely  procured  the  conltable  to  make  100  The  offices  of  Major  in  the  Mili- 
him  his  deputy,  and  fet  them  at  liberty,  tia,  and  of  Affiftant,  which  Pike  held, 

were 


7 1 


Wheelwright. 


original  caufe  of  their  difference  is  not  known,  but  there  is 
reafon  to  believe  that  it  was  connected  with  the  divifion  of 
the  town,  —  a  fort  of  tranfadlion  which  is  rarely  effedled 
without  jealoufy  and  difcord.  The  difficulty  between  the 
parties  did  not  break  out  into  open  hoftilities  till  feveral 
years  later. 

The  firft  allufion  to  it  which  we  can  difcover  is  in  a 
petition  addreffed  by  Wheelwright  to  the  Executive  of  the 
Colony,  which  ran  thus :  — 


To  the  Hon.  Jno.  Leverett ,  Esqr  Govr  the  Pet.  of  Jno.  Wheelewrvght  of 
Salisbury  humbly  fheweth  — 

Whereas  your  Petitioner  is  bound  for  Engld.  upon  vrgent  &  weighty 
reafons  &  is  by  Major  Robert  Pike  (as  he  apprhends)  injurioufly  &  ille¬ 
gally  obftrudted  caufeing  him  to  giue  one  hundred  pounds  bonds  for  his 
appearance  at  Court  in  Aprill  next,  to  anfwr  in  a  matter  wherein  he 
doubts  not  to  cleare  his  innocency,  but  fhall  inevitably  be  a  fufferer  by 
ye  obftrubtion  thereby  giuen  him  in  his  intended  voyage :  your  petitioner 
do  therefore  humbly  craue  the  favr  of  this  Hon.  Councell  fo  farr  to 
confider  the  prmifes  as  to  favor  yr.  Petenr  with  comanding  the  above  faid 
Major  Pike  to  appeare  before  yr  hond  felves  &  give  the  reafons  of  his 
adfions.in  y°  premifes,  &  yr  Petnr  fhall  ever  Pray. 

John  Wheelwright. 

This  petition  was  prefented  about  the  month  of  February, 
1 675-6,  and,  on  the  tenth  of  the  next  March,  the  Court  of 

Affiflants 

were  of  no  fmall  account  then.  Twenty  franchifed,  and  for  four  years  refufed 
years  before  this,  Pike  had  fhown  the  to  make  any  acknowledgment  of  his 
qualities  of  his  tongue  and  temper  by  offence;  but  at  length,  upon  the  pay¬ 
charging  the  majority  of  the  General  ment  of  his  fine,  and  by  the  interceffion 
Court  with  breaking  their  oath  in  vot-  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Worcefter  in  his 
ing  for  a  law  which  he  difrelifhed.  behalf,  he  was  reftored  to  the  privileges 
For  this  offence  he  was  fined  and  dif-  of  citizenfhip. 


72 


Memoir  of 

Affiftants  and  Council,  upon  mature  confideration,  “adjudged 
and  declared  the  warrant  of  Major  Robert  Pike  whereby 
Mr.  Wheelwright  was  convented  before  him,  to  be  illegall, 
&  that  therefore  Mr.  Wheelwright  &  his  fureties  are  not 
obliged  by  the  bond  given  for  his  appearance  at  Hampton 
Court  next:  And  that  Major  Pike  beare  the  neceffary 
charges  of  Mr.  Wheelwright’s  attendance  upon  this  Court 
in  this  bufinefs.”  101 

Pike  was  of  a  temper  that  could  ill  brook  fuch  a  rebuke. 
It  only  ferved  to  intenfify  his  inimical  feeling  toward  his 
paftor.  It  is  not  ftrange  that  he  ftrove  to  form  a  party 
againft  Wheelwright,  nor  that  he  fucceeded.  Some  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  church  gave  him  their  countenance,  and  thus 
that  body  became  involved  in  the  feud.  It  was  at  this  ftage 
of  the  controverfy,  probably,  that  the  miniffcer  called  upon 
the  civil  authorities  for  their  intervention,  in  a  petition 
conceived  in  moderation  and  no  unkindly  fpirit. 

To  the  Honoured  General  Court  now  affanbled  at  Boflon .  The  humble 
petition  of  John  Wheelwright pajlor  of  the  church  of  Salifbury , 
Sheweth 

That  whereas  there  has  arifen  among  vs  in  our  church  fundry  differ¬ 
ences,  efpecially  about  the  diuiding  of  the  New  Towne  from  the  Old, 
(concerning  which  peradventure  the  Court  was  not  rightly  informed)  fo 
that  our  peace  is  broken  &  the  free  comfortable  paffage  of  Chrits  ordi¬ 
nances  obftrubted.  Which  differences  we  haue  not  been  able  for  the  fpace 
of  aboue  two  yeares  to  compote  among  &  by  our  felves,  &  the  church 
refufeth  to  bring  the  caufe  to  any  open,  publicke  hearing : 

You  would  be  pleated  to  graunt  &  declare,  that  our  caufe  may  be 

brought 

101  Maffachufetts  Archives,  “  Eccle-  contemplated  a  voyage  to  England,  at 
fiaftical.”  vol.  i.  p.  37.  The  purpofe  this  time,  has  not  been  afcertained. 
for  which  the  energetic  old  minifter 


73 


Wheelwright. 


brought  before  a  Counfel  wch  you  fhall  appoint,  that  they  may  giue  vs  a 
full  hearing,  who  by  their  right  judgement  of  things,  &  graue  advice 
according  to  god,  may  afford  vs  their  affiftance  in  remouing  offences,  & 
the  fettlement  of  peace  y*  hereby  gods  ordinances  wth  vs  may  haue  their 
free  courfe  the  church  &  people  edifyed,  the  glorious  Gofpel  of  our  lord 
&  fauiour  adorned,  &  the  name  of  the  greate  god  which  is  called  vpo 
vs  be  glorifyed. 

So  fhall  yor  humble  petitioner  pray  &c.102 


The  judicious  requeft  for  the  appointment  of  a  council 
of  difinterefted  men  to  invefligate  the  caufes  of  the  trouble 
at  Salif  bury,  and  advife  the  belt  means  of  effecting  a  recon¬ 
ciliation,  was  difregarded  for  the  time ;  and  the  parties,  left 
to  their  own  devices,  went  only  wider  afunder.  Pike  made 
many  charges  againft  Wheelwright,  fome  of  them  in  writing, 
and  went  fo  far  on  one  occafion  as  to  call  upon  him  publicly 
to  “  caft  the  beam  from  his  own  eye,”  before  attempting  to 
remove  the  mote  from  his  brothers  eye.  A  majority  of  the 
church  fupported  Wheelwright,  but  a  confiderable  minority 
fided  with  his  opponent.  When  the  brethren  attempted 
to  fubjedl  Pike  to  difcipline  for  his  mifcondudl,  he  “  refufed 
their  judgment  with  much  contempt.”  Thereupon  they 
refolved  to  expel  him,  “  if  he  repented  not ;  ”  and  Wheel¬ 
wright,  granting  him  but  fmall  locus  penit entice,  pronounced 
fentence  of  excommunication  upon  him. 

While  matters  were  at  this  ferious  pafs,  in  the  fpring  of 
1677,  feveral  difaffedled  members  of  the  church  and  inhab¬ 
itants  of  the  town  addreffed  a  petition  to  the  General  Court, 
in  which  they  alleged  that  Wheelwright  was  the  caufe  of 
the  difturbance ;  that  his  preaching  had  a  tendency  to 

inflame 

102  Mafs.  Archives,  “  Ecclefiaftical,”  vol.  i.  p.  114. 


10 


Memoir  of 


inflame  the  minds  of  the  people  one  againfl  another ;  and 
prayed  that  he  might  be  removed  from  his  miniftry.  The 
Legislature  then  recognized  the  propriety  of  the  courfe 
previoufly  propofed  by  Wheelwright,  and  appointed  a  Com¬ 
mittee  of  Several  of  the  moft  prominent  and  judicious 
citizens  of  the  colony  to  repair  to  Salisbury,  inquire  into 
the  difficulties,  and  if  poSflble  bring  them  to  a  peaceful 
conclusion.103 

The  duty  aSflgned  the  Committee  was  performed  in  a 
Satisfactory  manner.  Like  moft  referees,  they  divided  the 
blame  between  the  parties ;  but  they  attributed  to  Pike 
much  the  greater  fliare.  They  required  him  to  make  con- 
fefflon  of  his  faults,  and  enjoined  the  church  thereupon  to 
receive  him  again  into  communion.  And,  finally,  they 
counselled  the  town  to  procure  an  affiftant  to  their  aged 
paftor  in  the  work  of  his  ministry,  “  not  abating,”  however, 
“  his  former  maintenance  among  them.” 

The  Committee  wifely  determined  to  remain  and  See 
their  award  carried  into  effeCt ;  which,  after  a  night’s  con- 
fideration,  and  with  Some  difficulty,  was  accomplished.104  So 
far  as  appears,  it  was  no  hollow  truce  that  enfued,  but  a 
genuine  pacification :  the  parties  having  once  been  brought 
together,  remained  ever  after  on  terms  of  concord  and 
amity. 

The  remaining  two  years  of  Wheelwright’s  life  were 

apparently 


103  5  Mafs.  Colonial  Records  (part  2), 
144.  The  Committee  confided  of  “Maj. 
Gen.  Denifon,  Thomas  Danforth,  and 
Jofeph  Dudley,  Efqs.,  Maj.  Thomas 
Savage,  Capt.  Hugh  Mafon,  Capt. 
Daniel  Fifher,  Maj.  Samuel  Appleton, 
and  Mr.  Thomas  Graves.”  Five  or 


fix  of  the  number  went  to  Salifbury, 
and  took  part  in  the  invedigation. 

104  5  Mafs.  Colonial  Records  (part 
2),  180.  The  report  of  the  Committee 
recites  many  of  the  circumftances  at¬ 
tending  the  progrefs  of  the  difficulty, 
which  have  been  dated  in  the  text. 


75 


W' heelwright . 


apparently  unclouded  with  trouble  or  care.  He  probably 
continued  to  perform  his  paftoral  duties  a  great  part  of  the 
time,  for  no  regular  afliftant  was  employed  till  June,  1679, 
when  the  Rev.  George  Burroughs,  whose  name  afterwards 
acquired  a  fad  prominence  in  one  of  the  moffc  tragical 
chapters  of  New  England  hiftory,105  was  engaged  to  render 
him  aid,  upon  a  flipend  raifed  by  voluntary  monthly  con¬ 
tributions. 

The  old  paftors  work  was  now  fubflantially  over.  He 
had  reached  the  venerable  age  of  eighty-feven  years,  with 
remarkably  little  diminution  of  his  powers  of  body  or  mind. 
The  end  was  near,  and  it  was  decreed  in  mercy  that  it 
fliould  come  without  protracted  helpleffnefs  or  fuffering. 
He  died  fuddenly,  of  apoplexy,  on  the  fifteenth  of  Novem¬ 
ber,  1679.  He  was  buried,  tradition  fays,  in  the  graveyard 
in  the  Eaft  village  of  Salifbury.  No  chifelled  monument 
marks  the  fpot,  nor  is  any  needed,  to  perpetuate  the 
memory  of  the  man. 

A  review  of  the  life  and  character  of  Wheelwright  leads 
to  the  conclufion  that  he  has  had  fcanty  juftice  from  his 
contemporaries,  or  from  thofe  who  followed  them. 

He  had  failings,  patent  to  every  eye.  He  was  conten¬ 
tious,  and  lacked  a  conciliatory  fpirit.  He  never  fhrank 
from  controverfy,  but  poffeffed  the  gaudium  certominis  in 
a  degree  which  the  higheft  efforts  of  felf-difcipline  were 
fcarcely  fufficient  to  overcome.  I11  his  encounter  with  the 

rulers 


105  This  gentleman,  a  graduate  of  againft  him  was  that  he  had  performed 
Harvard,  a  minifter  of  ability  and  feats  of  bodily  ftrength  which  would 
piety,  was  a  victim  of  the  witchcraft  have  been  impoflible  without  diaboli- 
delulion,  in  1692.  One  of  the  charges  cal  affiftance. 


Memoir  of 


rulers  of  Maffachufetts,  while  he  was  right  in  yielding  no 
convidlion,  he  was  unqueftionably  to  blame  for  much  of  the 
temper  and  fpirit  which  he  difplayed.  By  a  more  moderate 
carriage  he  might  have  mitigated  the  bitterriefs  of  ft  rife, 
though  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  that  he  could  have  con¬ 
tinued  among  them  without  a  facriftce  of  principle. 

Yet  it  muft  be  faid  that  Wheelwright  was  neither  intract¬ 
able  nor  unforgiving.  The  fair  conftruCtion  of  his  letters 
to  the  General  Court  and  Governor  Winthrop,  in  1643-4, 
indicates  his  capacity  both  to  fee  and  acknowledge  his 
miftakes  of  judgment  and  faults  of  temper.  In  his  later 
controverfy  with  Pike,  when  age  may  have  rendered  him 
more  querulous  and  opinionated,  he  ftiowed  that  he  was 
amenable  to  good  counfels,  and  capable  of  hearty  for¬ 
give  nefs. 

o  > 

The  impreffion  we  are  liable  to  form  of  Wheelwright  is 
that  of  an  auftere  man,  rigorous  in  exacting  his  own,  prone 
to  litigation.  But  this  may  be  a  harfh  judgment,  on  our 
very  imperfeft  knowledge.  He  was  by  nature  thrifty,  and 
had  a  large  and  expenfive  family  to  provide  for.  For 
feveral  years  he  was  abfent  in  England,  where  he  probably 
enjoyed  little  income.  His  lands  yielded  their  increafe,  but 
his  pofttion  and  mode  of  life  required  ready  money,  for 
which  he  was  ftraitened,  no  doubt,  often  enough  to  excufe 
him  for  preffing  others  for  the  payment  of  his  juft  dues. 
And  we  are  hardly  at  liberty  to  blame  even  a  clergyman 
for  too  frequent  appearance  in  the  courts  of  juftice,  unlefs 
we  have  evidence  that  he  was  fometimes  found  on  the 
wrong  fide. 

It  is  to  be  remembered,  too,  that  we  have  abfolutely  no 

acquaintance 


77 


Wheelwright. 


acquaintance  with  Wheelwrights  focial  or  domeftic  life. 
But  he  bred  his  numerous  children  to  become  ufeful  and 
refpeCtable  members  of  fociety ;  he  was  uniformly  remem¬ 
bered  with  efteem  and  affeCtion  by  his  parifhioners  in  the 
feveral  places  of  his  miniftrations ;  he  gained,  and  preferved 
through  all  changes  of  fortune,  the  friendfhip  of  two  of  the 
foremoft  characters  of  his  time.  If  he  had  not  poffeffed  in 
a  high  degree  the  qualities  of  mind  and  heart  befitting  the 
feveral  charaClers  of  parent,  paftor,  and  friend,  it  is  fafe  to 
fay  that  thefe  things  could  not  have  been. 

Wheelwright  was  notably  energetic,  induftrious,  and 
courageous.  His  intellect  was  vigorous  and  acute;  he 
could  boaft  an  ample  fhare  of  the  learning  of  his  age, 
efpecially  in  the  direction  of  his  own  profeffion.  His  fin- 
cere  piety  was  not  called  in  queftion,  even  by  thofe  who 
differed  from  him  moft  broadly.  With  thefe  advantages 
he  muft  have  filled  a  larger  fpace  in  the  affairs  of  New 
England,  and  exerted  a  wider  influence,  if  he  had  not  early 
braved  the  power  of  Maffachufetts.  For  this  he  was  never 
heartily  forgiven,  —  at  leaft,  until  it  was  too  late  for  him  to 
retrieve  the  pofition  he  had  loft. 

It  has  of  late  been  much  the  fafhion  to  argue  in  excul¬ 
pation  of  the  leaders  of  the  Maffachufetts  Colony,  for  their 
treatment  of  Wheelwright,  as  if  it  would  be  a  difparagement 
of  them  to  admit  that  they  were  liable  to  any  of  the  failings 
of  humanity.  Such  a  notion  is  quixotic  and  fuperfluous. 
The  excellence  and  eminence  of  Governor  Winthrop  are 
beyond  cavil,  and  the  character  of  the  Puritans  of  the  Bay 
in  general  is  worthy  of  fmcere  refpeCl  and  admiration. 
But  they  were  fallible  men,  living  in  an  age  of  intolerance, 

and 


78  Memoir  of  Wheelwright. 

1 

and  they  made  fad  midakes.  Their  conduct  towards 
Wheelwright  conditutes,  in  our  judgment,  their  lead  title 
to  refpedt.  But  they  did  fo  much  for  virtue  and  humanity 
that  we  can  afford  to  look  their  failings  in  the  face.  The 
exadt  truth  can  never  harm  them.  In  their  character,  the 
lights  only  hand  out  in  greater  prominence  by  reafon  of 
the  contrafting  fhadows. 

Wheelwright,  in  making  his  brave  dand  for  freedom  of 
opinion  and  of  fpeech,  was  far  in  advance  of  his  age.  At 
the  prefent  day,  we  are  in  a  podtion  to  appreciate  the  pure 
gold  of  his  principles,  purged  from  the  drofs  of  paffion  and 
prejudice.  While  we  recognize  his  foibles, — and  who, 
even  of  the  great  leaders  of  the  world,  has  been  without 
them?  —  we  believe  that  impartial  hidory  will  award  him 
no  indgnificant  place  among  the  heroic  fpirits  who  have 
been  content  to  fubordinate  ambition,  and  all  perfonal  con- 
dderations,  to  the  dictates  of  the  highed  duty. 


THE  WHEELWRIGHT  DEED  OF  1629; 

WAS  IT  SPURIOUS? 


HE  Wheelwright  deed,  as  it  will  be  termed  in 
this  paper,  by  way  of  diftindlion,  purports  to 
be  a  conveyance,  by  four  Indian  chiefs,  —  Paffa- 
conaway,  Sagamore  of  Penacook ;  Runawit, 
Sagamore  of  Pentucket;  Wahangnownawit, 
Sagamore  of  Squamfcot;  and  Rowls,  Sagamore  of  Newich- 
wanick,  —  to  John  Wheelwright,  Auguftine  Storre,  Thomas 
Wight,  William  Wentworth,  and  Thomas  Levitt,  all  Eng- 
lifhmen,  and  defcribed  as  of  the  Maffachufetts  Bay.  It 
affumes  to  grant  the  right  of  the  natives  to  an  extenfive 
tradt  of  land  in  southeaftern  New  Hampfliire,  and  bears 
date  the  feventeenth  of  May,  1629.106 

The  inftrument  was  found,  probably  between  the  months 
of  April  and  Auguft,  1 707,  feventy-eight  years  after  its  date, 
“  on  the  ancient  files  for  the  County  of  York,”107  Maine,  in 

the 

106  The  deed  is  given  in  full  at  the  107  Such  was  the  certificate  of  Judge 
end  of  this  paper.  Hammond,  the  Regifter.  i  Belknap’s 

Hift.  New  Hampfhire  App’x.  iv. 


8o  The  Wheelwright  Deed  of  1629; 

the  vicinity  of  the  fpot  where  Wheelwright,  the  firft  and 
principal  grantee,  lived  for  fome  years,  and  his  fon  and  heir 
had  refided  ever  after ;  certainly  a  natural  and  proper  place 
of  depofit.  It  was  lit. upon,  Cotton  Mather  writes,  by  a 
gentleman  “  as  honeft,  upright,  and  pious  as  any  in  the 
world,  and  who  would  not  do  an  ill  thing  to  gain  a  world.” 
He  adds  that  it  had  upon  it  irrefragable  marks  of  antiquity, 
almoft  as  many  as  there  be  years  in  the  number  1629.108  We 
are  not  informed  who  the  perfon  was  that  difcovered  it;  but 
it  is  quite  probable  that  it  was  Jofeph  Hammond,  who,  with 
his  father  bearing  the  fame  name,  both  gentlemen  of  high 
character  and  pofition,  had  been  familiar  with  and  in  charge 
of  the  records  of  York  County  for  a  long  period  before.109 
The  certificate  of  Judge  Hammond,  that  the  deed  was  found 
on  the  ancient  files,  is  itfelf  almoft  a  refutation  of  the 
hypothefis  that  it  was  a  recent  fabrication,  furreptitioufly 
depofited  there. 

The  deed  was  fubjedted  to  the  teffc  of  public  fcrutiny 
fhortly  after  its  difcovery,  in  the  trial  of  the  great  land-fuit 
of  Allen  v.  Waldron,  in  the  Superior  Court  of  New  Hamp- 
fliire.  Allen,  the  plaintiff,  had  acquired  the  title  of  John 
Mafon,  the  patentee,  to  the  entire  province  of  New  Hamp- 
fhire ;  and  his  fuit  was  a  teft-cafe,  brought  againft  Waldron, 
one  of  the  moft  prominent  citizens,  to  determine  whether 
Allen  had  the  paramount  right  to  the  whole  of  that  exten- 
five  and  then  valuable  territory,  or  the  occupants  of  the 
foil  were  to  be  affured  in  their  titles  to  the  farms'  which 
they  had  in  good  faith  reclaimed,  inherited,  or  purchafed. 

A 

108  3  Belknap’s  Hift.  N.  H.  App’x 
No.  1. 


109  2  Williamfon’s  Hift.  Maine,  75. 


Was  it  Spurious  f 


8 1 


A  judgment  for  Allen  would  infure  him  opulence  and 
confequence,  and  he  prepared  for  the  ftruggle  with  the 
diligence  and  care  ,  which  its  importance  demanded.  His 
title  had  been  fubmitted  to  tliftinguifhed  counfel  in  Eng¬ 
land,  and  he  retained  the  ableft  lawyers  in  the  new  world 
to  condudl  his  fuit  here.110  He  was  further  fortified  by  an 
order  from  the  Queen  in  Council,  requiring  the  New 
Hampfhire  jury  to  return  a  fpecial  verdidl  in  the  caufe; 
that  is,  not  fimply  a  finding  in  favor  of  the  plaintiff  or 
defendant,  as  the  cafe  might  be,  but  a  fiatement  of  all  the 
fadfs  proved  before  them;  from  which  the  Englifh  Court 
were  to  render  the  final  judgment.111  It  is  evident,  therefore, 
that,  as  Allen  had  negledfed  no  preliminary  preparations  to 
infure  fuccefs,  fo  no  ftone  would  be  left  unturned  in  his 
behalf  in  the  condudl  of  the  trial. 

The  iffue  had  been  fubmitted  to  a  jury  in  the  Inferior 
Court,  in  April,  1707,  and  the  verdidf  had  gone  for  the 
defendant.  Allen,  the  plaintiff,  took  an  appeal  to  the  Supe¬ 
rior  Court  to  be  held  in  Auguffc;  and,  according  to  the 
pradlice,  delivered  to  the  defendant,  in  July,  his  Reafons  of 
appeal,  reduced  to  writing.  To  thefe  the  defendant  fur- 
niflied  a  written  Reply.  It  does  not  appear  when  the 
Reply  was  brought  to  the  plaintiff’s  notice ;  but,  as  the  pur- 
pofe  of  it  was  to  apprife  him  of  the  grounds  of  the  defence, 

it 

110  Sir  Geoffrey  Palmer,  Sir  Francis  111  2  New  Hampfhire  Provincial  Pa- 
Winnington,  and  Sir  William  Jones  pers,  544.  In  that  volume  all  the  pa- 
gave  opinions  in  favor  of  Mafon’s  title,  pers  relating  to  the  fuit  of  Allen  v. 
through  which  Allen  claimed  ;  and  Waldron  are  given  in  extetifo ,  and  the 
James  Menzies  and  John  Valentine  reader  of  this  article  can  readily  find 
were  his  counfel  at  the  final  trial  in  among  them  the  documents  here  men- 
New  Hampfhire.  tioned,  without  further  fpecial  refer¬ 

ence. 


11 


82  The  Wheelwright  Deed  of  1629; 

it  is  to  be  prefumed  it  muff  have  been  a  reafonable  time 
before  the  trial.  The  Reply  gave  notice  that  the  poffeffion 
of  the  demanded  premifes  by  the  defendant’s  father  (under 
whom  the  defendant  claimed)  was  “grounded  on  a  very 
good  deed  .  .  .  from  the  Indian  fachems  .  .  .  bearing  date 
the  17th  May,  1629.” 

As  this  was  the  firffc  allufion  to  the  Wheelwright  deed,  in 
a  controverfy  which  had  been  ftoutly  maintained  for  years, 
it  may  well  be  fuppofed  that  Allen’s  counfel  would  lofe  no 
time,  after  the  notice,  in  feeking  out  and  infpecting  the 
new  piece  of  evidence  to  be  ufed  againft  their  client.  It 
was  either  in  the  poffeffion  of  the  defendant,  or  on  file  in 
the  regiftry  of  deeds  in  York  County,  only  a  few  miles 
from  Portfmouth,  where  the  trial  was  to  be  had ;  and,  in 
either  cafe,  was  to  be  feen  on  application. 

When  the  final  hearing  came  on,  therefore,  the  plaintiff 
undoubtedly  knew  all  that  he  defired  about  the  place  of 
depofit,  the  difcovery,  and  the  appearance  of  the  inftrument. 
If  there  had  been  any  thing  deceptive  in  the  handwriting  of 
either  of  the  various  parties  to  it,  or  fufpicious  in  any  of  the 
circumftances  connected  with  its  production,  it  would  beyond 
queftion  have  been  made  the  moft  of  in  Court ;  for  every 
lawyer  knows  how  detrimental  to  a  caufe  is  the  exhibition 
of  a  document  which  may  reafonably  be  fufpected  of  falfity. 
But  no  exception  appears  to  have  been  taken  to  the  deed : 
it  was  laid  with  the  other  evidence  before  the  jury,  and  they 
reaffirmed  the  verdict  for  the  defendant. 

Allen  then  claimed  an  appeal  to  the  Queen  in  Council, 
and  the  cafe  was  transferred  to  that  tribunal.  And  it  was  at 
this  fiage  of  the  proceedings,  months  after  the  trial  in  New 

Hampfhire 


W is  it  Spurious  f 


33 

Hampfhire,  that  the  genuinenefs  of  the  deed  was  firft  drawn 
in  queftion.  George  Vaughan,  agent  for  Waldron  the  de¬ 
fendant,  wrote  from  London,  probably  about  the  commence¬ 
ment  of  the  year  1708,  to  Cotton  Mather,  to  learn  his 
thoughts  upon  the  queftion,  “  How  a  date  in  the  year 
1629  could  confift  with  the  true  time  of  Mr.  Wheelwright’s 
coming  to  America  ?  ”  he  having  firft  landed  in  Bofton , 
with  his  family,  in  1636.  Mather’s  reply  was  dated  the 
third  of  April,  1708,  nearly  eight  months  after  the  trial  in 
the  Superior  Court  of  New  Hampfhire.112 

John  U flier,  of  New  Hampfhire,  in  a  letter  to  the  Lords 
Commiffioners  of  the  Board  of  Trade  in  London,  which 
reached  them  the  twenty-eighth  of  June,  1708,  mentions 
the  trial  of  Allen  v.  Waldron,  the  production  of  the  deed, 
and  adds:  “  Upon  inquiry,  Mr.  Wheelwright  came  into  the 
country  many  years  after  the  date  of  faid  deed  ;  ”  and  there¬ 
upon  expreffes  his  belief  that  the  deed  was  falfe.113  Uflier 
was  interefied  with  Allen  in  the  matter,  having  a  mortgage 
of  his  New  Hampfhire  domain.114 

Now  there  is  nothing  unufual  in  the  lofing  party  in  a 
fuit  at  law  complaining  that  he  was  defeated  by  forgery  or 
perjury:  it  is  fo  common  that  no  one  attaches  much  impor¬ 
tance  to  it,  unlefs  it  is  fubftantiated  by  fpecific  allegations 
and  proof.  In  the  prefent  cafe,  the  charge  refted  upon  a 
fingle  ground,  —  that  the  deed  bore  date  before  Wheel¬ 
wright’s  arrival  in  this  country.  Vaughan’s  and  U  flier’s 

letters 

112  3  Belknap’s  Hift.  N.  H.  App’x.  communication  has  the  authority  of  the 

No.  1.  Rev.  Alonzo  H.  Quint,  D.D. 

113  1  Hiftorical  Magazine,  57.  The  114  1  Belknap’s  Hift.  N.  H.  310. 


The  Wheelwright  Deed  of  1629; 


letters  agree  in  this.  No  intimation  was  given  that  any 
other  caufe  exifted  for  doubting  its  genuinenefs. 

There  is  every  reafon  to  believe  that,  if  any  fubftantial 
objection  to  the  deed  could  have  been  devifed,  the  Englifh 
appellate  tribunal  would  have  fet  afide  the  verdidl  againft 
Allen.  On  a  former  trial  of  the  caufe,  the  provincial 
court,  following  the  example  of  Maffachufetts,  had  refufed 
to  allow  Allen’s  appeal  to  the  king;  an  adt  which  was 
highly  refented  in  England.115  At  this  time,  frefh  caufe  for 
indignation  had  been  given  to  the  Englifh  authorities  by 
the  audacious  condudt  of  the  juries,  both  in  the  Inferior 
and  Superior  Court,  in  deliberately  fetting  at  naught  the 
order  of  the  Queen  in  Council  to  find  a  fpecial  verdidl:  in 
the  cafe.  Add  to  this  the  fadt  that  the  queftions  at  iffue 
had  long  been  a  fource  of  trouble  to  the  Englifh  Court, 
and  it  is  apparent  that,  if  the  forgery  of  evidence  had  now 
been  added  to  the  other  mifdoings  of  the  provincial  land- 
claimants,  the  appellate  tribunal  would  have  made  quick 
work  of  a  judgment  obtained  by  fuch  means.  But  though 
Allen  lived  eight  years  after  that,  yet  the  appeal  never  was 
decided.  His  heirs  at  law  were  minors ;  and  it  is  a  moft 
fignificant  fadt,  that  after  his  death  no  fteps  were  taken  in 
their  behalf  to  revive  or  profecute  the  litigation.  More 
convincing  proof  could  not  be  defired  that  the  theory  of 
the  forgery  of  the  deed  was  found  wholly  untenable  and 
bafelefs,  than  this  protradted  delay  and  final  abandonment 
of  the  claim.  The  hiftory  of  thefe  proceedings,  fhowing 
the  tefts  of  authenticity  through  which  the  Wheelwright 
deed  paffed  when  it  was  firft  brought  before  the  public 

notice, 


113  I  Belknap’s  Hift.  N.  H.  309. 


Was  it  Spurious  f 


85 

notice,  and  the  triumphant  manner  in  which  it  withftood 
all  impeachment,  furely  affords  no  infecure  bafis  for  main¬ 
taining  the  credit  of  the  inftrument  in  after  time. 

In  1713,  the  Wheelwright  deed  was  regiffered  in  the 
County  of  York,  Maine;  and  in  1714,  in  New  Hampfhire. 

On  the  twenty-third,  of  August,  1719,  Ephraim  Roberts 
and  others,  for  themfelves  “  and  a  fociety  of  about  1 80 
perfons  named  in  a  lift  for  fettling  a  plantation,”  purchafed 
of  Col.  John  Wheelwright,  of  Wells,  Maine,  a  grandfon  of 
the  Rev.  John  Wheelwright,  and  refiduary  devifee  of  his 
eftate  under  two  fucceffive  wills,  a  tradt  of  land,  ten  miles 
fquare,  lying  between  Haverhill,  Maffachufetts,  and  Exeter 
and  Kingfton,  New  Hampfhire,  of  which  Col.  Wheelwright 
gave  them  a  conveyance  founded  on  and  reciting  the  Indian 
deed  of  i629.11G  And  afterwards,  on  the  twentieth  of  Octo¬ 
ber  in  the  fame  year,  the  Rev.  James  MacGregor  and  others, 
for  themfelves  and  one  hundred  more  Scotch-Irifh  fettlers, 
purchafed  from  Col.  Wheelwright  a  tradt  of  land  of  equal 
extent,  the  fite  of  the  original  townfhip  of  Londonderry, 
and  took  from  him  a  fimilar  conveyance  thereof,  referring 
to  the  Wheelwright  deed  as  the  foundation  of  his  title.117 

Thefe  purchafes  were  both  after  the  abandonment  of 
Allen’s  fuit,  were  made  by  large  companies,  —  the  one  com- 
pofed  of  perfons  refident  in  the  vicinity  while  the  litigation 
refpedling  the  title  was  pending,  and  the  other  of  fhrewd 
and  cautious  immigrants,  fome  of  them  thoroughly  edu¬ 
cated,  and  all  anxious  to  obtain  a  releafe  unqueftionably 
and  honeftly  derived  from  the  Indian  proprietors,  of  the 

land 

116  Regiftry  of  Deeds,  Rockingham  117  Hift.  of  Londonderry,  321. 
County,  N.  H. 


86  The  Wheelwright  Deed  of  1629; 

land  on  which  they  had  fixed  their  home.  The  faffc  that 
two  fuch  diverfe  bodies  of  men  had  confidence  in  the  title 
is  of  no  fmall  weight;  but  to  the  impartial  inquirer  the 
circumfiance  that  Col.  Wheelwright  gave  the  fanffcion  of 
his  deliberate  a6t  to  their  faith  in  the  authenticity  of  the 
Indian  purchafe  of  1629,  fhould  have  a  controlling  fignifi- 
cance.  He  was  a  man  of  intelligence,  capacity,  and  high 
refpedf ability.118  He  was  a  Judge  of  the  Court  of  Common 
Pleas  twenty-nine  years ;  Councillor,  twenty-five  years ; 
Judge  of  the  Probate  Court,  thirty  years  and  until  his  death. 
It  cannot  be  fuppofed  that  he  would  himfelf  meddle,  or  de¬ 
lude  purchafers,  with  a  claim  in  which  he  had  not  entire  con¬ 
fidence.  Nor  is  it  juft  to  affume  that  he  could  not  afcertain 
whether  his  grandfather  actually  had  the  negotiation  with 
the  Indians  in  1629.  The  Rev.  John  Wheelwright  had  died 
only  twenty-eight  years  before  the  difcovery  of  the  deed. 
The  date  of  the  alleged  tranfaftion  was  lefs  than  a  century 
off.  Muff  we  fay  that  it  is  impoffible  to  afcertain  whether 
a  conveyance  only  ninety  years  old,  to  an  ancefior  who 
lived  fifty  years  after  it,  is  true,  or  a  recent  invention  ? 
Col.  Wheelwright  had  the  paper  itfelf  before  him  ;  he  had 
the  family  traditions  to  guide  him  ;  there  were  fcores  of  men 
then  living  who  knew  his  grandfather,  and  muff  have  heard 
his  accounts  of  the  fettlement  of  Exeter;  and  if  thefe  and 
all  other  fources  of  information  had  not  combined  to  fatisfy 
his  mind  that  the  purchafe  of  1629  was  a  real  tranfadlion, 
his  character  and  pofition  forbid  the  belief  that  he  would 
have  reprefented  it  fo  to  others,  for  any  paltry  gain  he 
could  fecure  thereby.  Indeed,  the  deeds  do  not  import  that 

he 

118  2  Williamson’s  Hift.  Maine,  76. 


Was  it  Spurious  f 


87 

he  received  any  confideration  whatever.  Col.  Wheelwright’s 
conduct,  therefore,  twelve  years  after  the  inftrument  was 
exhumed  from  the  ancient  files  of  York,  muft  be  taken  to 
be  a  moft  authoritative  indorfement  of  the  genuinenefs  of 
the  Wheelwright  deed. 

In  1728,  nine  years  after  the  conveyances  by  Col.  Wheel¬ 
wright,  the  firft  hiftorical  fketch  of  New  Hampfhire,  of 
which  we  have  any  knowledge,  was  compiled  by  the  Rev. 
Jabez  Fitch,  of  Portfmouth.  Born  in  1672,  and  a  graduate 
of  Harvard  College,  Mr.  Fitch  was  ordained  as  a  minifter 
in  Ipfwich,  Maffachufetts,  where  he  continued  till  1725; 
when  he  was  fettled  in  Portfmouth,  the  place  of  his  refi- 
dence  until  his  death  in  1746.  While  an  inhabitant  of 
Ipfwich,  he  could  not  have  avoided  hearing  often  of  the 
great  New  Hampfhire  land-controverfy,  and  learning  fome- 
thing  of  its  nature  and  merits.  Arrived  at  Portfmouth,  he, 
of  courfe,  fought  the  information  for  compofmg  his  hiftory 
from  the  moft  truftworthy  authorities.  He  records  the 
Wheelwright  purchafe,  as  a  faft  admitting  of  no  queftion,  in 
thefe  terms :  “  Some  of  the  firft  planters  purchafed  the 
native  right  to  the  foil  of  the  Sagamores  (with  the  univerfal 
confent  of  their  fubjefts),  for  themfelves  and  any  other 
Englifh  that  fhould  be  difpofed  to  fettle  here;  for  they 
were  then  defirous  that  the  Englifh  fhould  dwell  among 
them,  by  which  means  they  hoped  in  time  to  be  ftrength- 
ened  againft  their  enemies,  the  Tarrateens,  who  frequently 
annoyed  them.”119  It  will  be  feen  that  moft  of  thefe  expref- 
fions  were  copied  from  the  Wheelwright  deed. 

In 

119  See  the  original  MS.  of  the  hiftory,  in  the  poffeftion  of  the  Maffachufetts 
Hiftorical  Society. 


88  The  Wheelwright  Deed  of  1629; 

In  1739,  eleven  years  after  the  compofition  of  Fitch’s 
hiftorical  effay,  the  controverfy  refpedfing  the  boundary¬ 
line  between  New  Hampfhire  and  Maffachufetts  was 
brought  to  a  hearing.  The  printed  brief  of  the  latter,  ufed 
•  on  that  occafipn,  is  pofitive  in  the  affertion  of  the  Wheel¬ 
wright  purchafe  in  1629,  containing  this  language  :  “The 
Indian  princes,  to  ftrengthen  themfelves  againft  their  ene¬ 
mies,  the  Tarrateens,  by  receiving  the  Englifli  among  them, 
bargain  and  fell  to  John  Wheelwright  and  others  of  the 
Maffachufetts  Bay,  their  heirs  and  affigns,  all  that  part  of 
the  main  land  between  the  rivers  of  Merrimac  and  Pifcata- 
qua,  thus  defcribed,” —  giving  the  defcription  contained  in 
the  Wheelwright  deed.120 

In  1748,  nine  years  fubfequently  to  this,  Dr.  William 
Douglafs  publifhed  the  firft  volume  of  his  Summary,  .or 
“  Hiftorical  Account  of  the  Britifh  Settlements  in  America.” 
He  had  lived  in  Bofton  from  1718  to  that  time,  —  a  period  of 
no  lefs  than  thirty  years.  As  a  long  refident  in  the  adjacent 
colony,  and  as  a  careful  hiftorian,  he  could  not  have  failed 
to  know  that  the  title  to  the  territory  of  New  Hampfhire 
had  been  in  litigation,  and  what  was  the  beft  opinion  of  the 
day  in  regard  to  the  queftions  arifmg  therein.  He  relates 
the  Wheelwright  purchafe  as  a  fa6t  admitting  of  no  doubt, 
in  thefe  words:  “Anno  1629,  the  chiefs  of  the  Indians  of 
Merrimac  river  fold  to  John  Wheelwright  and  others  of  the 
Maffachufetts  Bay  colony,  all  that  land,  beginning,”  &c., — 
reciting  the  defcription  given  in  the  now  controverted 
deed.121  Later  editions  of  the  work,  up  to  1760,  contain 
the  fame  ftatement,  without  alteration. 

In 

120  The  New  Hampfhire  Hiftorical  121  i  Douglafs’s  Summary,  419. 
Society  have  a  copy  of  the  brief. 


JV as  it  Spurious  f 


89 

In  1784,  twenty-four  years  afterward,  the  firft  volume  of 
Belknap’s  Hiftory  of  New  Hampfhire  appeared,  which  was 
reprinted  •  in  1 792  ;  in  both  editions  unrefervedly  affirming 
the  truth  of  the  Wheelwright  purchafe.122  Nor  was  this 
done  in  ignorance  that  the  charge  of  forgery  had  been  railed 
againft  the  deed,  for  Belknap  in  his  third  volume  gives  the 
letter  of  Cotton  Mather  upon  that  very  fubjeft. 

In  1792-4,  the  two  volumes  of  Ebenezer  Hazard’s  Hiftor- 
ical  Collections  were  iffued,  in  which  the  deed  in  queftion 
was  fet  out  as  an  undoubted  document.123 

After  this  date,  narratives  of  the  early  fettlement  of  this 
region  multiply,  all  Eating  the  purchafe  of  1629  as  an  / 
indubitable  part  of  the  hiftory  of  the  time;  no  queftion 
having  been  raifed  thereon  until  the  elaborate  attack  upon 
its  credibility  made  by  the  Hon.  James  Savage,  about  the 
year  1820. 

The  Wheelwright  deed,  therefore,  having  fafely  run  the 
gauntlet  of  a  fharply  contefted  fuit  at  law,  and  emerged 
unfcathed  from  a  charge  of  forgery  ftrenuoufly  urged  before 
a  jealous  and  critical  tribunal ;  fupported  by  the  opinions  of 
thofe  upon  the  fpot,  interefted  and  difinterefted,  who  were 
belt  qualified  to  pronounce  upon  it ;  adopted  into  the 
annals  of  the  times,  and  maintaining  its  place  there  unquef- 
tioned  for  a  century, — muff  be  taken  to  have  thus  become 
part  and  parcel  of  our  common  hiftory,  and,  as  fuch,  to  be 
entitled  to  all  the  credence  and  prefumptions  of  truthfulnefs 
which  attach  to  time-honored  relations  in  general. 

It  is  obvious  at  a  glance,  that  a  narration  which  has  been 
received  as  correct  by  inquirers  and  writers  for  genera¬ 
tions, 

12:2  1  Belknap’s  Hift.  N.  H.  10.  123  1  Hazard’s  Collections,  271. 


oo  The  Wheelwright  Deed  of  1629; 

tions,  does  not  ftand  in  refpect  to  credit  exactly  like  a  new, 
untefted,  and  unverified  affertion.  It  has  certainly  gained 
fome  currency,  fome  claim  to  be  trufted  as  aftual  fadt,  by 
the  indorfement  which  years  of  univerfal  and  undoubting 
acceptance  have  given  it.  Hiftory  is  originally  made  up 
from  the  bed  information  attainable  at  the  period  when  it 
is  written.  Certain  faffs  are  predicated  from  records  fure 
to  be  preferved,  whofe  accuracy  cannot  be  controverted ; 
but  by  far  the  greater  proportion  are  gathered  from  perifh- 
able  and  difputable  materials,  like  private  writings,  oral 
communications,  and  current  beliefs.  While  hiftory  is  new 
*  it  is  plaftic,  and  can  be  moulded  into  different  form  by 
increafed  and  more  accurate  knowledge.  But,  as  time  goes 
on,  its  confiftency  becomes  more  firm.  The  mind  is  natu¬ 
rally  impreffed  with  the  idea,  that  flatements  which  bear  the 
ordeal  of  years  of  inquiry  and  new  difcoveries,  are  likely  to 
be  correft.  The  great  bulk  of  the  materials  of  hiftory  go 
gradually  to  decay.  They  have  done  their  work  in  fhaping 
and  fuftaining  the  new-made  chronicles  of  their  times ;  and 
when  they  perifli,  the  chronicles  have  outgrown  the  need  of 
their  fupport.  Hiftory,  when  old,  takes  the  place  of  the 
evidence  on  which  it  was  founded,  and  proves  itfelf. 

It  is  not  too  much  to  claim,  then,  that  a  ftatement  which 
has  maintained  its  hold  upon  the  belief  of  a  century, 
through  all  publifhed  accounts,  muft  be  regarded  as  prima 
facie  true,  and  only  to  be  difproved  by  evidence  of  the 
moft  cogent  character.  The  burden  of  proof  is  upon  thofe 
who  would  impeach  it.  If  they  fail  to  demonftrate  that  the 
received  ftatement  is  falfe,  their  impeachment  falls ;  the 
preemptions  in  favor  of  the  ftatement  prevail,  and  it  muft 

be 


Was  it  Spurious  f 


91 


be  taken  as  corredt.  Any  other  rule  than  this  would  put 
our  hiftory  on  a  par  with  old-wives’  tales  ;  and  we  fhould 
hold  our  moft  cherifhed  beliefs  at  the  mercy  of  the  firft 
ingenious  innovator  who  could  weave  a  plaufible  hypothecs 
for  their  annihilation.  I  rejoice  in  the  confidence  that  the 
invaluable  leffons  of  the  paft  are  not  liable  to  be  unfettled 
by  any  thing  fhort  of  abfolutely  convincing  evidence. 

And  if  fuch  is  the  rule  of  reafon  and  juftice  in  ordinary 
cafes,  how  much  more  propriety  is  there  in  its  enforcement 
where  the  denier  of  a  hiftorical  ftatement  can  only  make 
out  his  cafe  by  proving  the  commiffion  of  a  flagrant  crime  ? 
The  law  of  evidence  in  our  courts  of  juftice  provides  that  a 
criminal  offence  is  provable  only  by  teftimony  which  fatif- 
fies  the  mind  beyond  all  reafonable  doubt.  And  furely  no 
weaker  evidence  fhould  fuffice  to  accomplifh  the  double 
refult  of  deftroying  our  faith  in  a  long-accepted  hiftorical 
faCt,  and  of  convincing  us  of  the  truth  of  a  grofs  criminal 
charge.  The  authenticity  of  the  Wheelwright  deed  cannot 
be  impeached  without  eftablifhing  a  moft  improbable  cafe 
of  wicked  forgery. 

In  this  connection,  it  is  important  to  note  the  extreme 
paucity  of  information  in  our  poffeffion  refpedting  the 
early  affairs  of  New  Hampfhire.  It  may  be  almoft  faid 
that  no  records  or  documents  of  a  date  prior  to  1642,  nine¬ 
teen  years  after  Thompfon  and  the  Hiltons  founded  the 
fettlement,  exift,  to  throw  light  upon  that  portion  of  her 
hiftory.  Confequently,  it  would  be  in  the  higheft  degree 
unfafe  to  infer  that  an  occurrence  took  place  at  that  period 
becaufe  there  is  now  no  evidence  to  contradict  it,  or  that  an 
occurrence  did  not  take  place  becaufe  there  is  now  no  evi¬ 
dence 


92  The  Wheelwright  Deed  of  1629; 

dence  to  confirm  it.  No  conclufions  are  fairly  to  be  drawn 
from  want  of  evidence,  in  fuch  cafes. 

Before  attempting  to  meafure  the  force  of  the  confidera- 
tions  which  have  been  arrayed  againft  the  reality  of  the 
Wheelwright  purchafe,  it  is  ufeful  to  look  for  a  moment  at 
the  probabilities  of  the  cafe,  as  they  prefent  themfelves 
upon  uncontefted  contemporary  fadls. 

The  Rev.  John  Wheelwright,  in  1629,  was  about  thirty- 
feven  years  of  age,  and  had  been  a  clergyman  of  the 
Englifh  Church  probably  for  ten  or  twelve  years,  the  laft 
fix  of  which  he  was  in  charge  of  the  parifh  of  Bilfby,  near 
the  town  of  Alford,  in  Lincolnfhire,  England.  He  was  a 
man  of  leading  character,  of  advanced  opinions,  and  of  bold 
fpeech ;  one  who  in  thofe  times  might  well  look  forward  to 
being  filenced,  any  day,  for  non-conformity,  —  as  he  was,  in 
fadl,  not  long  after  that  date.  What  is  more  natural  than 
that  his  thoughts  fhould  then  be  turned  towards  New 
England,  already  noted  as  a  harbor  for  the  oppreffed,  as  a 
place  of  refuge  for  himfelf,  fhould  he  be  forbidden  to  exer- 
cife  his  clerical  functions  in  his  native  land  ? 

He  quitted  his  parochial  charge  about  the  year  1632  ;  but 
lived  in  the  fame  vicinity  moft  of  the  time  until  1636,  when 
he  came  over  with  his  family  to  the  new  world.  In  the 
autumn  of  1637  he  was  banifhed  from  Maffachufetts,  and 
proceeded  to  Exeter,  in  New  Hampfhire;  where,  by  the 
fourth  of  July,  1639,  he  was  furrounded  by  at  leaf!  fix  men, 
and  perhaps  more,  who  had  been  his  friends  and  parifhioners 
in  England ;  fome,  if  not  all  of  them,  heads  of  families.124 

Now, 

124  Auguftine  Storre,  William  Went-  Rifhworth,  Thomas  Levitt,  Chriftopher 
worth,  Samuel  Hutchinfon,  Edward  Lawfon,  and  Chriftopher  IJelme  pro¬ 
bably 


93 


Was  it  Spurious  t 

Now,  it  is  only  when  we  confider  what  a  momentous  ftep  it 
was  in  that  age  to  tranfplant  one’s  family  and  home  from 
the  midft  of  friends  and  comforts  in  the  old  country,  to  the 
wildernefs  and  privations  of  the  new,  that  we  can  realize 
how  remarkable  was  the  occurrence  of  fo  confiderable  a 
proportion  of  the  better  clafs  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  petty 
hamlet  of  Bilfby  quitting  the  abode  of  their  fathers,  to 
eftablifh  themfelves,  not  in  the  more  inviting  regions  of 
America,  but  in  a  new,  unknown,  inland  locality,  where 
were  all  the  hardfhips  and  dangers,  with  none  of  the  allevia¬ 
tions,  of  .  frontier  life. 

In  feeking  for  a  key  to  conduct  fo  exceptional,  the  mind 
naturally  fuggefts  that  it  muft  have  been  the  refult  of  fome 
preconcerted  plan  or  agreement.  Wheelwright  had  not 
been  the  paftor  of  the  immigrants  from  Bilfby  for  fome  half- 
a-dozen  years  before  the  fettlement  at  Exeter.  It  was  not 
the  cafe,  therefore,-  of  attached  friends  accompanying  their 
perfecuted  minifter  to  the  place  of  his  exile.  Moft  of  them 
came  over  independently  of  Wheelwright,  and  probably 
after  he  went  to  make  Exeter  his  home.  Now,  if  Wheel¬ 
wright,  while  living  among  them,  had  formed  with  thefe 
parifhioners  a  project  for  emigrating  in  a  body  to  America, 
and  efpecially  if  they  had  gone  fo  far  as  to  fecure  a  fite  for 
a  fettlement  here,  then  this  myfterious  change  of  abode  of 
fo  many  of  the  inhabitants  of  Bilfby  to  a  remote  and  fe- 
cluded  fpot  would  be  naturally  and  completely  accounted 
for ;  and  it  is  difficult  to  fee  that  it  could  be,  on  any  other 
hypothefis,  fo  well. 

Wheelwright 

bably  all  came  within  thefe  defigna-  Regijler ,  315,  22  lb.  139,  and  23  lb. 
*  tions.  —  See  21  N.  E.  Hijl.  and  Gen.  185. 


94  The  W^heelwright  Deed  of  1629; 

Wheelwright  was  not  the  man  to  lead  into  difficulties 

and  fufferings,  blindfold,  the  devoted  relatives  and  friends, 

who  were  willing  on  his  account  to  root  up  old  affocia- 

tions  and  attachments.  His  confcientious  and  refolute 

•  1  9 

heart  would  regard  a  voyage  acrofs  the  ocean  as  nothing, 

if  it  would  enable  him  to  fmooth  the  way  for  his  followers, 

and  prepare  a  fecure  and  independent  retreat  for  them  in 

advance. 

Again,  it  has  been  a  fource  of  wonder  that  Wheelwright, 
when  banifhed  from  Maffachufetts,  did  not  go  to  Rhode 
Ifland,  where  he  was  fure  to  find,  not  only  toleration,  but 
relatives  and  fympathizing  friends.  Callender  fays  that 
the  Puritans  there  “  had  defired  and  depended  on  ”  his 
miniftrations.125  If,  however,  he  had,  years  before,  fixed  on 
the  location  in  New  Hampfhire  for  his  future  home,  eftab- 
lifhed  an  underfianding  with  the  natives  to  that  effeft,  and 
arranged  with  his  Englifh  friends  for  a  fettlement  there, 
all  wonder  ceafes  that  he  did  not  adopt  what  would  have 
otherwife  Teemed  the  natural  courfe  of  removing  to  the 
genial  and  fertile  ffiores  of  Narraganfet. 

Another  circumftance  merits  notice,  in  this  connexion. 

It  was  the  duty  of  Wheelwright,  as  Vicar  of  Bilfby,  to 
make  up  annually,  on  the  twenty-fifth  of  March,  a  tran- 
fcript  of  the  parifh-regifter  for  the  pafi;  year,  and  to  depofit 
it  in  the  regifiry  of  the  Bifhop  of  Lincoln.  If  Wheel¬ 
wright  had  been  at  his  poft  in  England  on  the  twenty-fifth 
of  March,  1629,  he  would  have  prepared  a  tranfcript  for 
the  year  1628-9.  But  no  fuch  paper  is  to  be  found.  It 

is 

123  Callender’s  Hiftorical  Difcourfe,  Eliot’s  Biographical  Dictionary,  article  . 
in  4  Collections  R.  I.  Hitt.  Soc.  1 1 6 ;  “Wheelwright.” 


Was  it  Spurious  f  95 

is  a  fair  inference  that  he  was  then  abfent;  and,  if  fo, 
where  was  he,  unlefs  on  his  way  to  America  ?  It  may  be 
faid,  however,  that  a  tranfcript  may  have  been  made,  and, 
during  the  lapfe  of  more  than  two  centuries,  loft.  This 
is  quite  poftible,  though  thofe  for  the  years  1628  and  1631 
are  preferved,  and  in  their  proper  place.126  But  when  the 
queftion  was  raifed  in  1708  before  the  Privy  Council,  in 
Allen’s  appeal,  whether  Wheelwright  was  in  America  in 
1629,  and  it  was  deemed  neceffary  to  fend  to  this  country 
for  information  on  the  point,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
inquiry  was  inftituted  on  the  fame  fubjedt  in  England.  As 
a  matter  of  courfe,  the  regiftry  of  the  Bifhop  of  Lincoln 
would  be  confulted.  If  a  copy  of  the  tranfcript  had  then 
been  found,  or  any  other  document  to  fhow  that  Wheel¬ 
wright  could  not  have  vifited  New  England  in  1629,  Allen 
would  have  difplayed  it  in  triumph,  and  the  Court  would 
certainly  have  granted  an  immediate  order  for  a  new  trial 
of  his  caufe,  accompanied  with  directions  to  the  Queen’s 
attorney-general  here  to  profecute  for  forgery  all  parties 
concerned  in  the  uttering  of  the  Wheelwright  deed.  The 
fa6t  that  Allen,  on  the  contrary,  was  fuffered  to  languifh  for 
the  remainder  of  his  life  in  hope  deferred,  indicates  that  no 
document  under  the  fignature  of  Wheelwright,  fhowing  that 
he  could  not  have  vifited  the  new  world  in  the  fpring  of 
1629,  was  extant  one  hundred  and  fixty-feven  years  ago. 
And  this  greatly  ftrengthens  the  probability  that  no  tran¬ 
fcript  was  ever  made,  and  that  Wheelwright  was  really 
abfent  at  the  time  in  queftion. 

Thefe  feveral  circumftances,  though  each  in  itfelf  of 

flight 

126  22  N.  E.  Hift.,  and  Gen.  Regifter,  350. 


0 

The  Wheelwright  Deed  of  1629; 


flight  weight,  yet  all  concurrently  point  in  one  direction,  — 
to  the  probability  that  Wheelwright  did  leave  his  people  in 
England  in  the  Ipring  of  1629,  in  purfuance  of  a  fcheme 
for  a  future  joint  emigration  to  America,  and  fecured  a 
place  for  their  reception  at  the  falls  of  the  Squamfcot,  in 
New  Hampfhire.  Such  a  tranfadtion,  of  courfe,  could  be 
nothing  but  the  purchafe  of  1629. 

Having  thus  feen  the  claims  to  credibility  which  the 
Wheelwright  deed  poffeffes,  from  probabilities  fupported  by 
indifputable  fadts,  and  as  an  event  fully  and  long  embodied 
in  hiflory ;  and  having  confldered  the  kind  and  amount  of 
evidence  fairly  required  to  repel  the  prefumptions  in  favor 
of  its  authenticity  and  before  it  can  be  fuccefsfully  im¬ 
peached, —  we  are  now  prepared  to  examine  the  arguments 
which  have  been  urged  to  prove  it  to  be  fpurious.  As  a 
matter  of  convenience,  the  points  will  be  taken  up  fo  as  to 
render  the  pofltions  here  affumed  most  intelligible,  without 
regard  to  the  order  which  other  writers  have  adopted. 

I.  It  is  alleged,  in  the  firft  place,  that  neither  of  the  two 
perfons  whofe  names  are  fubfcribed  as  attefling  witneffes  to 
the  Wheelwright  deed  were  in  this  country  on  the  day  of  its 
date,  the  feventeenth  of  May,  1629.127  It  is  obvious  that 
this  objedtion,  if  fuftained,  is  fatal ;  and  there  is  no  need  of 
any  further  argument  to  nail  the  deed,  like  bad  money,  to 
the  counter.  And  it  argues  a  want  of  perfedt  confidence 
in  the  truth  of  the  affertioh,  on  the  part  of  the  affailants  of 
the  deed,  that  they  do  not  reft  their  cafe  on  that  alone, 
inftead  of  raifing  numerous  other  iffues,  not  one  of  which,  if 
adtually  made  out  in  their  favor,  would  be  equally  decifive. 

The 


127  1  Savage’s  Winthrop,  2d  ed.  505,  6. 


97 


Was  it  Spurious  f 

The  names  of  the  atteffing  witneffes  are  John  Oldham 
and  Samuel  Sharp.  There  were,  certainly,  two  perfons 
bearing  thofe  names  in  Maffachufetts  after  the  time  in 
queftion,  and  one  of  them  had  been  in  this  country  before. 

i.  John  Oldham  firft  came  out  to  Plymouth,  in  America, 
in  1623.  Two  years  afterward,  he  was  driven  from  that  col¬ 
on}/,  and  lived  in  Nantafket ;  but  was  again  reftored  to  favor, 
and  in  1628  was  fent  to  England  as  a  witnefs  againft  Morton, 
of  Merrymount.  All  authorities  agree  that  he  was  a  man 
of  enterprife,  and  well  acquainted  with  the  Indian  trade. 
He  had  become  poffeffed  of  a  grant  from  John  Gorges, 
under  the  patent  iffued  to  his  brother  Robert  in  1622,  of 
lands  lying  on  the  Maffachufetts  Bay ;  and  while  in  England 
in  1628-9  endeavored,  without  succefs,  to  make  fome 
arrangement  with  the  Maffachufetts  Company  for  his  occu¬ 
pation  and  proprietorfhip  of  the  fame. 

Nothing  further  is  heard  of  Oldham  in  Maffachufetts 
until  1631,  when  he  was  admitted  freeman.  Where  was 
he,  and  what  was  he  doing  in  the  mean  time?  It  is  argued 
that  he  was  in  England  till  the  eleventh  of  May,  1629, 
when  it  would  be  too  late  for  him  to  reach  this  country  in 
time  to  witnefs  the  Wheelwright  deed.  The  firft  evidence 
adduced  to  fubftantiate  this  pofition  is  drawn  from  the  rec¬ 
ords  of  the  Maffachufetts  Company,  then  kept  in  England. 
Under  date  of  the  feconcl  of  March,  1629,  they  contain  this 
entry:  “  Towching  Jn°  Oldam,  the  gouerr  was  ordered  to 
Conferr  wth  him  vppon  aney  Indifferent  Courfe  that  might 
not  bee  preiudiciall  to  the  Comp.”  Under  date  of  the  fifth 
of  March,  the  following :  “  A  newe  prpoficon  beeinge  made 
in  the  behalfe  of  mi*  Oldum  to  bee  Intertayned  [by]  this 

Comp : 


13 


98  The  Wheelwright  Deed  of  1629; 

Comp:  It  was  deferred  to  furder  confideracon.”  And  on 
the  tenth  of  March,  “  Cap  ten  Ven,  mr  Eaton,  mr  Samuell 
Vaffall,  &  m"  Nowel,  &  m*  Whetcombe,  or  an[y]  three  [of] 
them  are  Intreated  once  more  to  conferr  wth  ml  Jn.° 
Ouldam,  [to  fee  what]  Comodacon  may  bee  made  twixt  the 
Comp.  &  him,  yt  [their  differences  may  be  C]omodated.”128 

Up  to  this  date,  it  is  immaterial  to  our  inquiry  where 
Oldham  was.  Between  the  tenth  of  March  and  the  feven- 
teenth  of  May,  there  was  abundant  time  for  him  to  crofs 
the  Atlantic  and  repair  to  the  falls  of  the  Squamfcot. 

So  far  as  can  be  learned  from  the  records,  the  committee 
that  had  been  “  intreated  ”  to  confer  with  Oldham  never 
fucceeded  in  doing  fo.  It  was  not  becaufe  the  matter  was 
confidered  of  trifling  confequence,  for  his  claim  was  evi¬ 
dently  deemed  by  the  Company  an  important  one,  and  this 
was  a  final  attempt  to  adjufi:  it  with  him.  There  was  the 
firongeft  reafon  to  expedl,  therefore,  that  the  committee 
would  feek  him  out,  if  he  was  to  be  found  in  the  country. 
The  fact  that  they  did  nothing  affords  a  prefumption,  at 
leaft,  that  he  was  not  where  he  could  be  communicated 
with.  The  committee  made  no  report. 

But  under  date  of  the  eleventh  of  May,  1629,  this 
record  appears :  “  This  day  mT.  Ouldum  propounded  vnto 
ml  White  that  he  would  have  his  patten  examined,  and  its 
agred  by  the  Courte  not  to  haue  any  treatye  with  him 
about  it,  by  refone  its  thought  he  doth  it  not  out  of  loue, 
but  out  of  fome  fynifier  refpedt.”  Does  this  entry  prove 
that  Oldham  was  then  in  England  ? 

White 

128  The  Company’s  Records,  in  3  Archaeologia  Americana,  14,  15,  22. 


Was  it  Spurious  f 


99 


White  was  not  prefent  at  the  meeting  of  the  Company.129 
Confequently  Oldham’s  “  propounding  ”  of  the  examination 
of  his  patent  could  not  have  occurred  at  the  meeting.  White 
mud  have  apprifed  the  Company  of  the  propofal  of  Old¬ 
ham,  by  letter  or  meffage.  Oldham,  of  courfe,  did  not 
attend  the  meeting,  or  his  proportion  would  not  have  been 
made  to  White,  the  attorney,  but  to  the  Governor  and 
Company,  the  parties  there  prefent,  who  were  to  decide 
upon  it.  And  if  Oldham  had  been  in  or  about  London  at 
the  time,  with  an  overture  to  prefent  for  the  Company’s 
confideration,  White,  indead  of  receiving  it  himfelf,  would 
undoubtedly  have  directed  him  to  take  it  in  perfon  to  the 
Company,  at  their  meeting. 

It  feems  clear,  therefore,  neither  White  nor  Oldham 
being  prefent,  that  the  fecretary  mud  have  made  up  his 
record,  in  regard  to  Oldham’s  proffer,  from  fome  verbal  or 
written  communication  from  White.  The  expredion  “  this 
day,”  in  the  record,  then,  mud  be  condrued  to  refer  to  the 
time  when  the  matter  was  brought  before  the  Company, 
and  not  as  fixing  the  time  when  Oldham  actually  made  the 
propofal  to  White.  As  we  have  feen,  Oldham  was,  probably, 
not  in  London  at  the  time,  and,  if  not,  there  is  no  evidence 
that  he  was  in  England.  On  the  quedion,  when,  where,  or 
how  he  propounded  to  White  the  examination  of  his 
patent,  we  are  entirely  in  the  dark.  It  may  have  been 

orally 

120  Company’s  Records,  in  3  Arch.  MS.  for  publication  in  the  Arch.  Am- 
Americana,  31.  It  is  true  that  in  the  ericana,  it  was  feen  that  what  had 
verlion  of  the  Records  in  Young’s  been  before  mifread  White,  was  in 
Chronicles  of  Maffachufetts,  69,  White  reality  the  latter  part  of  the  name  of 
is  reprefented  as  at  the  meeting  on  Foxcrofte,  the  earlier  letters  having 
the  eleventh  of  May.  But,  upon  the  been  torn  away  or  become  illegible, 
more  careful  infpedlion  of  the  original 


ioo  The  Wheelwright  Deed  of  1629; 

orally  or  in  writing,  in  perfon  or  through  an  agent. 
It  may  have  been  fent  from  Land’s  End  or  Lincolnfhire, 
and  have  borne  date  any  day  after  his  former  communica¬ 
tion  of  the  fifth  of  March. 

So  much  for  the  records  of  the  Maffachufetts  Company. 
They  not  only  do  not  fliow  that  Oldham  was  in  England 
within  the  two  months  prior  to  the  execution  of  the  Wheel¬ 
wright  deed ;  but  they  render  it  probable,  to  fay  the  lead, 
from  the  failure  of  the  committee  of  the  tenth  of  March  to 
confer  with  him,  that  he  had  left  the  kingdom,  at  or  foon 
after  the  date  of  their  appointment. 

The  only  other  evidence  relied  on'  by  thofe  who  would 
invalidate  the  deed,  to  prove  an  alibi  for  Oldham,  is  con¬ 
tained  in  the  letter  of  the  Governor  and  Company  of  the 
Maffachufetts  Bay  to  John  Endicott,  dated  the  feventeenth  of 
April,  1629.  This  is  the  firft  paffage :  “fynding  him  (Old¬ 
ham)  a  man  altogeather  vnfitt  for  vs  to  deale  with,  wee  haue 
at  laft  left  him  to  his  owne  way:  And,  as  wee  are  informed, 
hee,  wth  fome  others,  are  prvyding  a  veffell,  and  is  mynded 
as  foone  as  hee  can  difpatch,  to  come  for  New  England, 
prtending  to  fettle  himfelfe,  in  Mattachufetts  Bay,  clayming 
a  Tytle,”  &c.130  The  argument  is  that  this  datement,  in  a 
letter  bearing  date  jud  a  month  before  the  Wheelwright 
deed,  proves  that  Oldham  was  then  in  England,  with  too 
little  time  to  allow  him  to  crofs  the  ocean  to  witnefs  the 
execution  of  the  indrument. 

But  we  mud  recoiled!  that  this  is  a  very  long,  general 
letter  of  indrudlions,  plainly  not  written  at  a  fitting,  but 

made 


130  Letter,  in  3  Arch.  Americana,  82. 


IOI 


Was  it  Spurious  f 

made  up  from  time  to  time,  as  events  occurred,  or  fubjedfs 
fuggefted  themfelves.  It  contains  the  intelligence  of  weeks, 
if  not  of  months.  The  committee  to  write  letters  was 
appointed  the  fixth  of  April,  and  they  evidently  fil'd:  pre¬ 
pared  an  account  of  all  that  had  tranfpired,  or  had  been 
reported,  up  to  that  time,  and  added  other  matters  as  they 
arofe  ;  dating  the  whole,  as  is  ufual  with  foreign  letters  of 
accretion,  on  the  day  when  it  was  to  be  forwarded.  The 
letter  begins  with  an  acknowledgment  of  the  receipt  of  a 
communication  of  the  prior  September;  then  follows  an 
account  of  obtaining  the  King’s  patent  for  the  incorpora¬ 
tion  of  the  Company.  That  patent  was  formally  completed 
on  the  fourth  of  March,  1629,  more  than  a  month  before 
the  date  of  the  letter.  The  ftatement  concerning  Oldham 
is  in  the  early  part  of  the  paper,  and  undoubtedly  comprifed 
the  latefi  information  which  the  Company  then  had  in 
regard  to  his  movements  and  defigns. 

It  is  altogether  probable  that  the  operations  of  Oldham 
were  not  carried  on  at  London,  but  in  fome  part  of  the 
kingdom  not  readily  acceffible  from  the  capital.  Otherwife 
the  Company  would  have  been  able  to  obtain  more  definite 
knowledge  refpedfing  him.  They  believed  that  the  veffel 
which  he  was  fitting  out  with  defpatch  was  defigned  for 
the  Maffachufetts  Bay;  but  the  event  proved  that  they  were 
mifinformed  on  that  point,  for  Oldham  did  not  make  his 
voyage  thither.  Thofe  were  days  of  fmall  inland  communi¬ 
cation,  when  the  doings  of  a  perfon  in  a  diftant  part  of  the 
kingdom  were  as  little  likely  to  be  known  as  if  he  were  be¬ 
yond  fea.  Oldham  might  almoft  have  built  his  veffel  and  fet 
fail  in  her,  at  fome  remote  point  on  the  coafb,  before  the 

report 


102  The  IVheelwright  Deed  of  1629; 

report  that  her  keel  was  laid  would  have  reached  the  Com¬ 
pany  at  London.  It  would  be  a  wonder  if  they  had  kept 
informed,  within  a  month,  of  his  movements.  The  letter  of 
the  Governor  and  Company  to  Endicott,  therefore,  cannot 
be  relied  upon  to  prove  where  Oldham  was  at  the  time  of 
its  date,  or  probably  for  weeks  before. 

There  is  a  fecond  poftfcript  to  this  letter,  which  has  been 
thought  to  indicate  Oldham’s  continued  prefence  in  Eng¬ 
land  ;  but  it  is  fo  clearly  in  the  pad  tenfe  that  it  is  remark¬ 
able  that  any  perfon  could  have  drawn  fuch  an  inference 
from  it.131 

Thefe  are  all  the  arguments  which  have  been  adduced  in 
fupport  of  the  pretence  that  Oldham  could  not  have  been 
in  New  England,  to  fet  his  hand  to  the  Wheelwright  deed, 
on  the  feventeenth  of  May,  1629.  It  is  fubmitted  that  they 
come  entirely  fhort  of  their  purpofe  ;  nay,  that  they  even 
contain  an  implication  in  the  oppofite  direction.  They 
fhow  that  Oldham  was  making  ready  to  leave  England  for 
the  new  world.  They  do  not  fix  any  date ;  but  circum- 
ftances  render  it  probable  that  it  may  have  been  in  the  very 
early  fpring.  From  this  evidence  alone,  we  fliould  perhaps 
be  juftified  in  the  inference  that  he  did  vifit  thefe  fhores 
before  the  letter  to  Endicott  arrived. 

But  there  is  very  diredl  proof  of  the  fa6l  from  another 
fource.  It  is  derived  from  the  grant  from  the  Council  of 
Plymouth,  to  Richard  Vines  and  Oldham,  of  the  territory 
of  what  is  now  Biddeford  in  Maine,  dated  the  twelfth  of 
February,  1630.  The  infirument  recites  that  Oldham  had 

“  already 


131  3  Arch.  Americana,  95. 


103 


IV as  it  Spurious  f 

“  already  at  his  own  proper  coft  and  charges  tranfported  (to 
New  England)  and  planted  there  divers  perfons,  and  hath 
for  the  effecting  that  fo  good  a  work,  undergone  great  labor 
and  danger.” 132  Now  there  are  contemporaneous  accounts 
of  Oldham  fufficient  to  make  it  reafonably  certain  that  he 
had  not,  before  1629,  done  any  colonizing  in  New  England, 
beyond  fetching  out  his  own  wife  and  children  in  1623, 
which  could  hardly  have  been  confidered  a  fufficient  founda¬ 
tion  for  a  grant  of  land  in  1630;  confequently  the  inference 
is  almoft  irrefffiible,  that  the  “  divers  perfons  whom  he  had 
tranfported  and  planted  ”  here  muffc  have  been  brought  over 
in  the  feafon  of  1629.  So,  too,  the  “great  labor  and 
danger  ”  which  Oldham  is  faid  to  have  undergone  in 
effecting  the  good  work  of  colonization  can  refer  to  none 
of  his  known  antecedents  prior  to  1629,  and  are  only  to  be 
explained  as  relating  to  the  fatigues  and  perils  of  a  voyage 
in  that  year. 

That  voyage,  then,  was  made  to  New  England,  but  not 
to  Maffachufetts.  Whither  was  it?  The  probabilities  all 
point  to  the  mouth  of  the  Saco ;  for  it  is  only  natural  that 
he  ffiould  have  planted  his  colonifts  on  the  land  where  he 
intended  to  take  his  grant.  Who  were  the  “  fome  others  ” 
concerned  with  Oldham  in  fitting  out  the  veffel  for  the 
voyage?  Richard  Vines,  probably,  was  one.  Was  John 
Wheelwright  another? 

One  of  the  queftions  triumphantly  put  by  thofe  who 
deny  the  reality  of  the  Wheelwright  purchafe  is,  How 
could  Wheelwright  reach  this  country  in  1629,  and  without 

his 

132  Folfom’s  Hift.  Saco  and  Biddeford,  318. 


104  The  Wheelwright  Deed  of  1629; 

his  arrival  being  known  in  Maffachufetts  ?  Here  is  a 
fimple  folution  of  the  problem  :  Wheelwright  might  have 
come  with  Oldham,  diredlly  to  the  Saco,  and,  without 
vifiting  Maffachufetts  at  all,  have  returned  with  him,  or  in 
fome  other  veffel  from  an  eaftern  port,  the  fame  feafon. 
Oldham,  no  doubt,  failed  for  England  again  in  time  to  take 
out  his  grant,  —  the  twelfth  of  February,  1630.  Thus,  there 
would  be  nothing  extraordinary  in  Wheelwrights  coming 
to  New  England  being  entirely  unknown  in  Maffachufetts. 

Oldham,  by  reafon  of  his  difficulties  with  the  people  of 
the  Maffachufetts  Bay,  would  have  been  only  too  ready  to 
aid  any  one  in  preparing  for  a  fettlement  in  their  vicinity 
which  might  prove  a  rival  or  a  trouble  to  them.  And  by 
his  acquaintance  with  the  country,  and  efpecially  with  the 
habits  of  the  natives,  he  would  be  the  very  man  to  arrange 
for  the  meeting  of  the  fagamores  with  the  Englifh,  to 
conclude  the  Wheelwright  purchafe,  at  the  falls  of  the 
Squamfcot. 

2.  Samuel  Sharp  is  the  name  of  the  other  witnefs  of  the 
execution  of  the  Wheelwright  deed.  It  has  been  affumed 
by  thofe  who  call  the  deed  in  queftion,  that  this  was  the 
Samuel  Sharp  who  was  appointed  an  affiflant  in  the  Maffa¬ 
chufetts  Bay  Company  in  1629.  That  gentleman  was 
intruded  by  the  Company  with  a  letter  and  other  articles 
to  be  delivered  to  Endicott,  and  was  expedled  to  fail  for 
New  England  in  the  “George,”  which  did  not  arrive  in 
Salem  until  the  twenty-third  of  June,  1629.  It  is  worthy 
of  remark,  that  there  is  no  abfolute  proof  that  he  did  fail  in 
that  veffel.  It  is  quite  among  the  poffibilities,  though  it 
muff  be  admitted  to  be  improbable,  that  he  changed  his 

purpofe, 


Was  it  Spurious  f 


105 


purpofe,  and  found  fome  more  fpeedy  method  of  reaching 
our  fhores. 

But  there  is  nothing  but  identity  of  name  on  which  to 
bafe  the  affumption  that  this  was  the  fame  perfon  whofe 
atteftation  appears  upon  the  Wheelwright  deed.  There 
may  well  enough  have  been  another  Samuel  Sharp  on  the 
Pafcataqua  at  that  time.  I  am  aware  that  this  fuggeftion 
has  been  treated  with  fcornful  incredulity.  It  has  been 
inquired  how  many  myriads  of  chances  there  were  againft 
fuch  a  concurrence ;  and  the  attempt  has  been  made  to 
overwhelm  the  hypothecs  by  a  mathematical  demonftra- 
tion.133  But  the  common-fenfe  of  mankind  is  not  to  be  ob- 
fcured  by  the  fallacious  ufe  of  fuch  arguments.  Whatever  the 
antecedent  probabilities  againft  fuch  coincidences,  the  occur¬ 
rence  of  the  moft  unlikely  double,  and  even  triple,  events 
is  not  fo  uncommon  as  to  ftartle  us  out  of  our  propriety. 
Take  an  inftance  which  has  come  under  my  obfervation 
while  inveftigating  this  very  fubjedt.  The  Maffachufetts 
Company  contained  one  hundred  and  eleven  members. 
The  chances  are  almoft  too  great  for  computation  that,  of  the 
millions  of  inhabitants  of  Great  Britain,  two  perfons  bearing 
the  fame  name  would  not  be  found  among  that  fmall  number. 
Yet  that  Company  actually  did  contain  two  John  Whites: 
one  the  minifter,  and  author  of  the  Planter’s  Plea ;  and  the 
other  the  counfellor,  who  is  faid  to  have  been  inftrumental 
in  fhaping  the  royal  charter.  But  this  is  not  all :  at  lead 
one,  and  perhaps  two,  other  men  of  the  name  of  John 
White  are  alluded  to  in  the  records  of  the  Company  as  in 

fome 


133  1  Savage’s  Winthrop,  2d  ed.  507. 


14 


io6  The  Wheelwright  Deed  of  1629; 


fome  way  connected  with  it,  or  engaged  in  its  fervice.134 
When  we  confider  that  the  chances  againffc  each  recun 
rence  of  the  fame  name  increafe  in  a  geometrical  ratio, 
we  realize  how  eafy  it  is  to  argue,  mathematically,  that 
thefe  feveral  coincidences  could  not  be  expedled  to  happen. 
And  yet  the  fa6t  is  that  they  did  happen ;  and  it  only 
impreffes  the  mind  as  curious,  not  marvellous.  Wherever 
the  fallacy  may  be  in  applying  the  dodtrine  of  antecedent 
probabilities  to  thefe  cafes,  I  feel  affured  that  the  ftatement, 
that,  among  the  feveral  hundreds  of  Englifh  in  New  Eng¬ 
land  in  May,  1629,  there  may  have  been  two  named 
Samuel  Sharp,  outrages  no  reafonable  man’s  powers  of 
belief,  but  would  be  generally  accepted  as  no  very  wonder¬ 
ful  circumftance. 

It  would  not  be  ftrange  if  we  had  no  knowledge  of  the 
New  Hampfhire  Samuel  Sharp,  other  than  that  he  wit- 
neffed  the  Wheelwright  deed.  From  the  apportionment  of 
the  expenfes  of  fuppreffmg  Morton  of  Merrymount,  and  fend¬ 
ing  him  to  England,  among  the  feveral  towns  and  plantations 
according  to  numbers  and  ability,  the  population  immedi¬ 
ately  on  the  Pafcataqua,  in  1628,  may  be  not  unreafonably 
eftimated  at  not  far  from  three  hundred  fouls ;  and  Edward 
Hilton,  at  Squamfcot,  may  be  taken  to  have  employed  about 
one  hundred  more.135  Now  fo  completely  has  all  knowledge 

refpedling 

134  3  Archaeologia  Americana,  cvi.  hundred,  and  that  of  Salem  about  two 
A  John  White,  of  Virginia,  is  men-  hundred.  —  i  Savage’s  Wnithrop ,  2d 
tioned,  in  addition  to  all  the  others.  ed.  508.  According  to  the  fame  ratio, 

135  The  fums  apportioned  to  the  va-  the  numbers  at  Pafcataqua  and  at  Hil- 
rious  fettlements  are  given  in  3  Mafs.  ton’s  plantation  fhould  be  not  lefs  than 
Hilt.  Society’s  Collections,  63.  Ply-  thofe  fuggefted  in  the  text.  Of  courfe 
mouth  was  affeffed  £2  10s. ;  Naumkeak  no  accurate  refults  can  be  expeCted 
(Salem),  £\  10s.  ;  Pafcataquack,  £ 2  from  this  method  of  computation,  but 
10s.  ;  Edward  Hilton,  £1.  The  popu-  the  exadt  numbers  are  not  effential  to 
lation  of  Plymouth  was  then  near  three  the  argument. 


//z as  it  Spurious  t 


107 

refpedling  thefe  ancient  inhabitants  been  obliterated,  that 
we  have  never  even  heard  the  names  of  nine  out  of  ten  of 
them  all. 

And  yet,  by  a  fingular  accident,  one  of  the  names 
which  has  furvived  is  that  of  Samuel  Sharp.  On  the 
feventh  of  July,  1631,  Samuel  Sharp  was  a  witnefs  of  the 
livery  of  feizin  of  the  land  included  in  the  Squamfcot 
patent,  to  Edward  Hilton ;  an  occurrence  which  happened 
within  half-a-dozen  miles  from  the  place  of  the  execution 
of  the  Wheelwright  deed,  and  two  years  later.136  It  furely 
requires  fome  boldnefs,  in  the  face  of  this  evidence,  to  deny 
that  among  Hilton’s  men,  or  elfewhere  upon  the  Pafcat- 
aqua,  there  was'  a  fecond  Samuel  Sharp,  in  fpite  of  the 
dodlrine  of  chances. 

Of  courfe,  it  is  eafy  to  reply  that  it  might  be  the  Maffa- 
chufetts  Samuel  Sharp  who  witneffed  the  Squamfcot  patent. 
But  I  am  not  aware  of  a  particle  of  ground  for  affuming 
that  the  Maffachufetts  Affiftant  made  a  journey  into  the 
wilds  of  New  Hampfhire  to  accomplifli  fo  trifling  a  for¬ 
mality;  and  it  will  be  time  enough  to  deal  with  that 
fuggeftion,  when  it  is  fupported  by  fome  faint  fhadow  of 
evidence. 

In  view  of  the  confiderations  here  advanced,  is  it  too 
much  to-  fay,  that  this  moffc  formidable  argument  againft 
the  Wheelwright  deed, —  that  its  witneffes  were  not  in  the 
country  at  the  time  of  its  date,  —  is  not  fuftained  by  proof? 

II.  A  fecond  objedlion  to  the  genuinenefs  of  the  Wheel¬ 
wright  deed,  on  which  great  ftrefs  has  been  laid,  is  that  it 

was 


136  24  N.  E.  Hift.  and  Gen.  Regifter,  264. 


io8  The  Wheelwright  Deed  of  1629; 

was  dated  on  Sunday.  It  is  urged  that  no  minifter  of  the 
gofpel  would  have  been  engaged  in  the  fecular  bufinefs  of 
purchafing  land  on  that  day.137 

But,  not  to  jump  too  haftily  at  conclufions,  let  us  fee 
precifely  what  the  tranfadtion  was.  It  was  not  a  mere 
commercial  affair;  it  was  no  bargain  for  real  eftate,  in 
the  ordinary  fenfe  of  the  term,  for  as  we  fliall  fee,  later 
on,  the  Indians  had  no  power  to  convey  a  title  to  land. 

It  amounted  fimply  to  a  treaty  with  them  for  their 
amity  and  good-will ;  for  their  permiffion  that  Wheelwright, 
and  fuch  Englifh  colonifts  as  he  might  approve,  fhould 
occupy  the  foil  without  moleftation  or  hindrance  on  their 
part.13S  In  another  afpedt,  it  was  the  fecuring  of  an  afylum 
for  men  fleeing  from  perfecution,  for  confcience’  fake.  Is 
there  any  thing  in  the  nature  of  the  negotiation,  in  either 
view,  that  fhould  render  it  improper  to  be  performed  on 
Sunday,  even  by  the  molt  fcrupulous  Chriftian  ?  And  if, 
as  is  no  unnatural  fuppofition,  the  fagamores  and  their 
tribefmen  had  affembled  on  that  day,  ready  to  complete  the 
bufmefs,  and  unable  to  appreciate  any  reafons  for  deferring 
it  till  the  morrow,  liable  to  change  their  humor  and  difap- 
pear  before  another  funrife,  —  would  it  be  unlikely  that  even 
fo  punctilious  a  man  as  Wheelwright  fhould  look  upon 
the  work  as  one  of  mercy  and  neceffity  alike,  fo  as  to  waive  . 
all  fcruples  to  its  accomplifhment  on  the  Lord’s  Day  ? 

The  rulers  of  the  Maffachufetts  Bay,  than  whom  none 
were  more  confcientious  refpedfers  of  the  firft  day  of  the 
week,  thought  it  no  defecration  of  the  day  to  fend  out  a 

party 

137  1  Savage’s  Winthrop,  2d  ed.  51 1. 

13S  See  the  provifions  of  the  deed,  infra. 


JV is  it  Spurious  ? 


109 


party  of  foldiers  on  Sunday  to  difarm  the  chieftain,  Paffa- 
conaway,  in  1642,  on  the  mere  apprehenfion  of  a  com¬ 
bination  of  the  Indians  againft  them ;  though  no  hoftilities 
had  yet  been  committed.139 

But  to  affert  that  the  Wheelwright  deed  “  bore  date  on 
Sunday  ”  is  to  convey  an  erroneous  impreffion.  The  day 
of  the  week  is  not  named  in  the  date.  The  day  of  the 
month  alone  is  mentioned,  —  the  feventeenth  of  May.  It  is 
true  that  the  feventeenth  of  May  did  fall  on  Sunday ;  but 
if  the  inftrument  had  fpecified  “  Sunday,”  or  “  the  firft  day 
of  the  week,”  there  would  have  been  no  room  for  miftake ; 
whereas,  it  being  fimply  “  the  feventeenth  of  May,”  an  error 
of  a  unit  on  either  fide  would  bring  it  on  a  week  day. 
Nothing  is  eafier  or  more  common  than  fuch  a  miftake. 
We  are  continually  mifdating  our  letters,  one,  two,  or  three 
days,  while  we  have  the  daily  papers  lying  on  our  table,  and 
the  calendar  pofted  up  in  the  defks  at  which  we  write. 
How  much  more  liable  to  fuch  an  overfight  would  one 
have  been  two  centuries  and  a  half  ago,  in  the  depth  of  the 
wildernefs  where  all  times  were  alike,  and  there  was  no 
almanac  within  a  day’s  journey ! 

It  curioufly  happens  that  an  error  of  exactly  the  fame 
fort  is  obfervable  in  a  document  produced  in  the  difcuffion 
.  of  this  fubjedt  as  evidence  to  impeach  the  deed.  The 
paper  contains  the  depofitions  of  Wheelwright,  Edward 
Colcord,  and  Samuel  Dudley.  That  of  Wheelwright  hands 
firft,  and  is  dated  the  fifteenth  of  April,  1668.  Thofe  of 
Colcord  and  Dudley  are  fubfequent  to  Wheelwright’s,  refer 

to 


139  2  Savage’s  Winthrop,  *79. 


II 6  The  Wheelwright  Deed  of  1629; 

to  it,  and  corroborate  it;  but  they  are  fworn  to  on  the 
fourteenth  of  April,  —  that  is,  on  the  day  before  the  depofi- 
tion  of  Wheelwright,  to  which  they  allude ,  appears  to  have 
been  written.140  Here,  on  their  face,  the  dates  are  incon¬ 
tinent;  and  one  of  them  muft  be  falfe.  Yet  no  fair-minded 
inveftigator  would  infill  that  this  was  evidence  of  fraud  and 
forgery.  The  apparent  contradiction  is  fufceptible  of  expla¬ 
nation  upon  the  obvious  hypothecs  of  a  miffake  of  the  day 
of  the  month  on  the  part  of  Wheelwright,  or  of  the  clerk 
who  made  the  jurat.  Any  one  who  would  refufe  to  accept 
this  method  of  reconciling  the  conflicting  dates,  we  fhould 
be  apt  to  fufpeCt  of  obtufenefs  or  prejudice.  Yet  the 
inconfiftency  in  the  date  of  the  Wheelwright  deed  is  equally 
eafy  of  explanation,  in  exaCtly  the  fame  way ;  and  ftill  we 
are  afked  to  affume  that  it  could  not  have  been  a  miftake, 
but  muft  neceffarily  be  proof  of  forgery. 

It  appears  to  me,  that  an  importance  has  been  given 
to  this  exception,  in  every  point  of  view,  which  does  not 
properly  belong  to  it. 

III.  A  third  point,  much  infilled  on  as  detracting  from 
the  credibility  of  the  Wheelwright  purchafe  of  1629,  is  the 
allegation  that  it  was  never  heard  of  until  1707,  feventy- 
eight  years  after  its  occurrence.141 

If  this  were  true,  there  is  a  very  good  and  obvious  reafon 
for  it.  When  Wheelwright  fet  up  his  abode  in  Exeter,  in 
1638,  he  took  two  other  conveyances  from  the  Indians, 
covering  all  the  land  he  defired,  and,  indeed,  nearly  the 

whole 

140  Belknap’s  Hift.  N.  H.  (Farmer’s  Dr.  Bouton  has  laid  peculiar  ftrefs 

ed.)  7,  note.  upon  this  exception. 

141  1  Savage’s  Winthrop,  2d  ed.  502. 


Was  it  Spurious f 


1 1 1 


whole  of  the  territory  embraced  in  the  purchafe  of  1629; 
excepting  only  a  belt  on  the  weffc  fide,  and  the  fites  of  the 
Pafcataqua  fettlements  on  the  north-eafi. 

Why  he  wanted  a  new  conveyance,  we  may  eafily  con¬ 
ceive.  The  firffc  deed  was  burdened  with  ftipulations  which 
experience  had  no  doubt  fhown  to  be  needlefs  and  trouble- 
fome.  It  was  far  eafier  to  obtain  a  new  grant  than  to  perform 
the  conditions  of  the  old.  But  a  yet  more  potent  motive 
weighed  upon  his  mind.  The  deed  of  1629  contained  a 
diftindt  provifion  that  the  Englifh  fettlements  formed  under 
it  fliould  be  fubjeCt  to  the  government  of  the  Maffachufetts 
Bay,  until  they  efiablifhed  fettled  governments  among 
themfelves.  However  judicious  that  may  have  feemed  in 
1629,  the  condition  of  things  had  widely  changed  in  the 
intervening  nine  years.  In  1638,  Wheelwright  had  juft 
undergone  fentence  of  banifhment  from  the  Maffachufetts 
Bay,  amid  circumftances  which  would  render  the  placing  of 
his  new  home  under  that  government  the  farthefi;  thing 
from  his  wifhes.  A  new  deed  from  the  natives,  that  fliould 
be  free  from  that  obnoxious  feature,  was  a  neceffity.  It 
would  not  invalidate  the  former  one,  of  courfe,  but  would 
practically  fuperfede  it.  We  may  be  fure  that  the  new  title 
would  be  the  only  one  that  Wheelwright  would  affert,  for  the 
term  of  his  banifhment  at  leaft.  This  would  completely 
account  for  the  deed  of  1629  not  being  more  diredly  and 
frequently  referred  to  in  after  years. 

But  it  is  going  too  far  to  fay  that  the  deed  of  1629  was 
never  heard  of  till  1707. 

On  the  thirteenth  of  Odlober,  1663,  Wheelwright  gave 

his 


1 12  The  Wheelwright  Deed  of  1629; 

his  depofition,  which  was  fworn  before  the  Court  at  Hamp¬ 
ton,  as  follows :  — 

“This  deport  teftifieth  that  himfelfe  wth  fome  others  who  were  to  fit 
down  at  Exiter  did  imploy  Edward  Colcord  to  purchace  for  them  as  he 
remembers  a  certayn  trabt  of  land  from  Oyfter  river  to  Merimack,  of 
ye  Indians,  for  which  they  gave  him  ten  or  twelve  pound  in  money  & 
had  a  grant  thereof  figned  by  fome  Sagamors  with  their  marks  upon  it, 
of  whch  Runawitt  was  one.”  142 

The  laffc  claufe  in  this  depofition  is  important  to  our 
inquiry,  where  Wheelwright  ftates  that  Runawit  was  one  of 
the  Sagamores  who  figned  the  deed  of  the  land  which  he 
bought  from  the  Indians.  Now  Runawit  did  not  fign 
either  of  the  deeds  of  1638,  but  his  name  does  appear  as  a 
figner  of  the  deed  of  1629.  It  may  be  admitted  that  the 
defcription  of  the  land,  given  in  the  depofition, — “from 
Oyfter  river  to  Merrimac,”  —  does  not  correfpond  with  the 
defcription  in  the  deed  of  1629;  and  it  is  quite  probable 
that  Wheelwright  intended  to  refer  to  the  purchafe  of  1638, 
as  we  have  feen  that  he  practically  waived  that  of  1629. 
But  the  ftubborn  queftion  remains,  How  did  he  happen  to 
name  Runawit  as  a  grantor,  if  Runawit  never  figned  any 
deed  ?  It  is  common,  after  a  confiderable  lapfe  of  time,  to 
forget  names  and  tranfaCtions  that  actually  happened  ;  but 
who  ever  heard  of  remembering  a  name  that  never  was  ufed  ? 
—  a  thing  that  never  did  happen  ?  This  difficulty  has  been 
poorly  met  by  the  fuggeftion,  without  evidence,  that  Wheel¬ 
wright  may  have  miftaken  the  name  of  Runawit  for  that  of 

Watchanowet, 

142  Potter’s  Hiftory  of  Manchefter,  ham  County,  in  the  cafe  of  Smith  v. 
N.  H.  18,  note.  The  depofition  is  to  Wadleigh,  A.D.  1711. 
be  found  in  the  Court  files  of  Rocking- 


Was  it  Spurious  f 


1 1 3 


Watchanowet,  who  was  a  figner  of  the  deed  of  1638.  But 
what  poffible  ground  can  there  be  for  fo  thinking  ?  The 
names  are  not  fufficiently  alike  to  render  it  probable  that 
Wheelwright  confounded  them  by  reafon  of  their  fimilarity. 
Neither  was  this  the  cafe  of  a  fudden  effort  to  recall  a  long 
paft  tranfadtion.  On  the  contrary,  it  was  a  formal,  judicial 
adt,  where  the  memory  was  deliberately  ranfacked  for  fadts 
to  be  atteffed  under  the  folemnity  of  an  oath.  Wheelwright 
had  lived  for  years  in  the  vicinity  of  thofe  Indian  chiefs, 
and  their  names  muff  have  been  too  familiar  to  his  ear  to 
admit  of  miftake,  efpecially  under  circumftances  calling 
for  the  utmoft  accuracy. 

But  this  is  not  the  only  inftance  in  which  the  Wheel¬ 
wright  deed  was  heard  of  before  1 707. 

In  1676,  Edward  Randolph  came  over  from  England  as 
agent  for  Robert  Mafon,  the  then  claimant  of  the  foil  of 
New  Hampfhire,  and  promulgated  among  the  inhabitants  a 
letter  addreffed  to  them  by  the  latter,  in  the  charadter  of 
proprietor.  The  people  of  Portfmouth  held  a  public  town 
meeting  on  the  occafion,  and  protefted  againft  Mafon’s 
pretenfions,  declaring  that  they  had  in  good  faith  purchafed 
their  lands  from  the  Indians ;  and  incorporated  the  declara¬ 
tion  in  a  petition  to  the  king.143  Now,  there  is  no  pretence 
that  there  was  ever  any  other  purchafe  of  the  natives’  right 
to  the  territory  of  Portfmouth  than  that  of  1629,  which  was 
the  foundation  of  the  Wheelwright  deed.  The  deeds  of  1638 
expreflly  exclude  the  Pafcataqua  patents,  and  cover  no  part 
of  Portfmouth.  The  declaration  of  the  inhabitants  in  1676, 

then, 

143  Adams’  Annals  of  Portfmouth,  59. 

15 


1 14-  The  Wheelwright  Deed  of  1629; 

then,  that  they  had  purchafed  their  lands  from  the  Indians, 
was  a  palpable  recognition  of  the  deed  of  1629. 

On  the  eleventh  of  June,  1680,  after  the  separate  govern¬ 
ment  of  New  Hamplhire  had  been  conftituted,  and  while 
the  Mafonian  claim  loomed  up  heavily  over  the  inhabi¬ 
tants,  the  General  Court  of  the  province  adopted  an  addrefs 
to  the  king,  in  which  they  befought  his  majefty’s  protection 
from  injury  by  pretended  claimers  to  their  foil,  “confider- 
ing,” —  to  ufe  their  own  language,  —  “the  purchafe  of  our 
lands  from  the  heathen,  the  native  proprietors  thereof, 
and  our  long  and  quiet  poffeffion  thereof.” 144  Again  in 
1684,  in  anfwer  to  Mafon’s  claim,  the  people  urged  the  plea 
that  “  the  prefent  inhabitants  (of  this  province),  either  by 
themfelves  or  predeceffors,  purchafed  their  poffeffion  from 
the  natives,  and  by  their  permiffion  did  fit  down  upon  the 
land.”  145  Thefe  were  affertions  made  in  behalf  of  the  whole 
population,  and  refpefting  the  foil  of  the  entire  province. 
The  lands  referred  to  were  all  embraced  in  Wheelwright’s 
acquifition  from  the  Indians  in  1629,  but  not  all  in  any 
other  purchafe.  In  refpedt  to  thofe  portions  of  the  lands, 
therefore,  to  which  the  rights  of  the  aborigines  could  only 
have  been  obtained  by  the  deed  of  1629,  the  inhabitants 
muff  obvioufly  have  relied  upon  that  inftrument,  in  their 
allegation  that  thofe  rights  had  been  purchafed.  Here  are 
two  other  inftances,  therefore,  in  which  the  Wheelwright 
deed  was  heard  of,  in  effeCt  though  not  by  name,  prior  to 
its  difcovery  in  1 707. 

It  would  appear  alfo,  from  the  letter  of  Cotton  Mather  to 

George 

144  1  N.  H.  Provincial  Papers,  412.  145  Ibid.  512. 


Was  it  Spurious  ?  1 1 5 

George  Vaughan,  that  the  Wheelwright  deed  had  been 
known  and  much  talked  of  before  it  was  found  in  1707. 
His  language  is  this :  “  There  feems  to  have  been  as  re¬ 
markable  a  difplay  and  inftance  of  that  Providence  in  the 
finding  of  this  inftrument  juft  before  the  fitting  of  your  laft 
Court  about  this  affair ;  and  after  it  had  been  for  very  many 
years  difcourfed  of  among  the  good  men  who  knew  of  fuch 
an  inftrument,  but  with  regret  concluded  it  loft  and  gone 
beyond  all  recovery.” 146  It  may  be  admitted  that  Mather 
was  as  credulous  and  faulty  in  judgment  as  he  has  been 
pronounced,  but  no  perfon  has  ventured  to  affert  that  he 
was  falfe.  Thefe  allegations  of  his  are  matters  of  fadt, 
affirmed  upon  his  own  veracity,  and  their  entire  truthfulnefs 
is  above  fufpicion. 

So  far,  then,  is  the  ftatement  that  the  Wheelwright  deed 
was  never  heard  of  till  1 707  from  being  true,  that  the  won¬ 
der  rather  is,  confidering  that  it  was  not  intended  to  be 
relied  on  after  the  fubftitutes  of  1638  were  taken,  that  fo 
many  unmiftakable  allufions  to  it  are  now  to  be  detected. 

The  foregoing  may  be  pronounced  the  moft  weighty 
arguments  which  have  been  produced  againft  the  validity 
of  the  Wheelwright  deed.  But  there  are  others,  more  efpe- 
cially  connected  with  the  inftrument  itfelf,  which,  though  of 
minor  confequence,  yet  demand  notice. 

i.  The  length  and  formal  character  of  the  deed,  unlike 
all  other  conveyances  from  the  natives,  when  there  was  no 
lawyer  in  the  country  capable  of  framing  fuch  an  inftrument; 
the  ftipulations  and  provifos  it  contained,  efpecially  for  the 

benefit 

146  3  Belknap’s  Hift.  N.  H.,  Appx.  No.  1. 


1 1 6  The  W^heelwright  Deed  of  1629; 

benefit  of  the  Indians,  who  it  is  well  known  were  improvi¬ 
dent  and  carelefs  of  the  future  ;  the  alleged  miftakes  of  fadls 
in  regard  to  the  apprehended  irruptions  of  the  Tarrateens, 
and  as  to  the  date  of  the  fettlement  of  the  Maffachufetts 
Bay,  —  thefe  matters  have  been  feverally  enlarged  upon,  as 
impugning  the  credibility  of  the  paper.147 

But  if  Wheelwright  came  over  in  1629  to  obtain  the 
fandfion  of  the  aborigines  to  his  fixing  a  location  for  a 
projected  colony,  he  would  naturally  have  provided  himfelf 
in  advance  with  all  the  information,  and  every  appliance, 
which  could  be  forefeen  to  be  needful.  A  general  form  for 
a  releafe  of  land  by  the  natives,  to  be  filled  up,  perhaps,  by 
Wheelwright  on  the  fpot,  could  be  eafily  procured  from  a 
conveyancer  at  Alford.148  It  would  have  been  all  the  more 
likely  to  be  technical  and  prolix,  from  the  ignorance  there 
of  precedents  of  the  fame  character.  The  fiipulations  in 
the  Indians’  behalf  were  due  to  the  impulfes  of  Wheel¬ 
wright’s  own  juft  heart,  fcorning  to  take  an  unfair  advan¬ 
tage  of  the  fimple  favages.  The  dread  of  incurfions  of  the 
Tarrateens,  felt  by  their  wefiern  neighbors,  muft  have  been 
familiar  to  every  Englifh  inquirer  refpedting  the  Indians  ; 149 
fo  that  the  infertion  of  it  in  the  deed  was  perfectly  natural, 
even  if  it  was  incorredl, —  which,  however,  is  by  no  means 
certain. 

The  pofition  taken  in  oppofition  to  the  deed,  that  its 

allufion 

147  1  Savage’s  Winthrop,  493-7.  whether  the  clergyman  might  not  in 

148  Wheelwright  himfelf  was  familiar  early  life  have  been  articled  to  an  at- 
with  the  phrafeology  of  conveyancing,  torney. 

if,  as  feems  probable,  he  drew  his  own  149  Levett’s  Voyage  to  New  Eng- 
laft  will.  A  reference  to  it,  as  given  at  land,  in  28  Mafs.  Hift.  Soc.  Collections, 
the  clofe  of  this  volume,  may  lead  the  175. 
reader,  as  it  did  the  writer,  to  wonder 


Was  it  Spurious  f 


ii  7 


allufion  to  the  colony  of  Maffachufetts  Bay  is  an  anachronifm 
becaufe  that  colony  had  not  yet  been  founded,150  will  hardly 
bear  examination.  The  original  Maffachufetts  grant  from 
the  council  of  Plymouth  was  iffued  more  than  a  year  before 
the  date  of  the  Wheelwright  deed.  By  virtue  of  it,  Endicott 
had  come  out  and  affumed  the  office  of  governor  at  Salem, 
bringing  with  him  a  party  of  a  hundred  colonifts.  The 
royal  charter  incorporating  the  “  Governor  and  Company  of 
the  Maffachufetts  Bay  ”  was  a  confirmation  of  that  grant, 
with  the  addition  of  civil  rights  and  political  privileges ;  and 
the  new  Company  was  fubffantially  a  continuation  of  the 
old,  Endicott  holding  the  fame  pofition  under  its  authority 
as  before.  At  the  outfet,  Salem  was  the  plantation  which 
the  Company  fpecially  cared  for;  but  when  the  royal  charter 
was  iffued,  all  the  fettlements  along  the  coaft,  from  the 
Charles  to  the  Merrimac,  fell  within  their  jurifdidtion  and 
charge. 

Wheelwright  would  naturally  have  made  a  point  of 
acquainting  himfelf  with  all  that  was  to  be  learned  in  Eng¬ 
land  refpedfing  the  colonization  of  the  fedlion  which  he 
was  intending  to  vifit.  The  charter  of  the  Maffachufetts 
Bay  Corporation  paffed  the  feals  weeks  before  he  need  have 
failed  for  America,  and  no  extraordinary  diligence  was 
requifite  to  enable  him  to  afcertain  its  general  provifions. 
He  could  have  known  that  the  colony  of  Maffachufetts  then 
poffeffed  one  confiderable  fettlement,  and  the  nuclei  of 
others,  which  were  juft  about  being  reinforced  with  largely 
increafed  numbers  and  ample  fupplies. 

It  is  faid,  however,  that  thofe  fettlements  were  then 

fpoken 

150  This  point  was  prefcnted  molt  fully  by  Dr.  Bouton. 


1 1 8  The  Wheelwright  Deed  of  1629; 

fpoken  of  here  by  their  fpecial  names,  as  Naumkeag,151  &c. 
But  Wheelwright,  gaining  his  information  in  England,  could 
hardly  have  been  expedted  to  follow  the  American  fafhion. 
The  moft  he  probably  could  have  known  of  them  was  that 
they  conftituted  the  then  colony  of  the  Maffachufetts  Bay ; 
and  as  fuch  they  are  referred  to,  with  entire  propriety,  in 
the  deed  of  1629.  No  ferious  difcrepancy  is  to  be  found, 
therefore,  in  the  mention  of  the  colonifts  of  the  Maffachu¬ 
fetts  Bay  in  the  deed ;  notwithftanding  it  was  a  year 
before  the  foundation  of  Bofton.152 

But  it  is  urged  that  in  the  Wheelwright  deed  the  Englifh 

grantees  are  defcribed  as  of  the  Maffachufetts  Bay,  when 
% 

not  one  of  them  lived  there,  or  had  probably  ever  fet  his 
foot  there.153  At  the  worft,  this  is  what  the  lawyers  call  a 
mifdefcription,  not  implying  any  intention  to  deceive  or 
injure.  Why,  how,  or  by  whom  it  was  done,  we  have  no 
means  of  knowledge,  but  we  can  fee  that  it  is  a  matter  of 
no  fpecial  confequence.  If  a  blundering  fcribe  had  by 
miftake  inferted  it  in  the  fair  draft  of  the  inftrument,  it 
probably  would  not  have  been  confidered  important  enough 
to  corredt,  at  the  rifle  of  defacing  the  writing.  Could  we 
learn  the  particulars  of  the  tranfadtion,  it  is  not  unreafon- 
able  to  fuppofe  that  a  very  fimple  explanation  might  be 
found  of  the  apparent  inconfiftency.  I  will  fuggeft  one 
which  is  not  at  all  improbable. 

The  aborigines  muff  have  known  that  fome  adventurers 

who 

151  Dr.  Bouton’s  argument.  chufetts  Colony,  Anno  1628. ”-34  Mafs. 

152  The  very  title  to  Scottow’s  Nar-  Hift.  Soc.  Collections,  279. 

rative  feems  enough  to  fettle  this  quef-  153  1  Savage’s  Winthrop,  2d  ed.  495. 
tion  ;  “Of  the  planting  of  the  Maffa- 


IV as  it  Spurious  f  1 1  g 

who  had  vifited  their  coafts,  claiming  to  be  Englifhmen, 
had  committed  adts  of  injuflice  and  cruelty.  But  they 
undoubtedly  underftood  that  the  fettlers  of  the  Maffachu- 
fetts  Bay  were  friendly  and  juft,  and,  confequently,  exadlly 
the  fort  of  perfons  to  whom  they  would  be  moft  difpofed  to 
part  with  the  poffeffion  of  their  lands.  If  they  had  de¬ 
clined,  by  reafon  of  this  feeling,  to  deal  with  any  Englifh 
except  thofe  of  the  Maffachufetts  Bay,  Wheelwright’s  en¬ 
deavor  would  be  to  convince  them  that  he  and  his  fellow- 
colonifts  were  men  of  like  charadter  with  them.  The 
fimpleffc,  perhaps  the  only  feafible,  way  of  doing  fo  was  to 
reprefent  themfelves  as  of  the  Maffachufetts  Bay.  The 
idea  which  this  would  convey  to  the  Indians  was  not  fo 
much  that  of  locality,  as  of  charadter,  —  that  Wheelwright 
and  thofe  whom  he  reprefented  were  of  the  fame  blood, 
difpofition,  and  purpofes,  as  the  Englifhmen  of  Maffachu¬ 
fetts  ;  which  was  ftridtly  true.  And  it  would  be  doing  no 
wrong  to  the  natives,  for  all  that  they  could  have  intended 
was  to  infure  for  themfelves  defirable  neighbors. 

While  there  are  various  fuppofable  ways  in  which  this 
wrong  location  of  the  grantees  in  the  Wheelwright  deed 
may  be  eafily  and  confidently  accounted  for,  fhall  we,  in  our 
ignorance,  prefume  to  brand  it  as  a  forgery,  upon  the  ground 
that  it  is  inexplicable  ? 

2.  Another  point  made  againfl  the  authenticity  of  the 
Wheelwright  deed  is  that  Paffaconaway,  fagamore  of  the 
Penacooks,  at  the  time  when  the  deed  purports  to  have 
been  figned  by  him,  was  unfriendly  to  the  Englifh  and  op- 
pofed  to  their  fettlement  in  this  country ;  fo  that  he  was  un¬ 
likely 


120  The  Wheelwright  Deed  of  1629; 


likely  to  have  been  a  party  to  any  grant  to  them  for  that 
purpofe.154  This  exception  is  bafed  upon  a  certain  fpeech 
of  the  fagamore  to  his  fon,  alleged  to  have  been  made  at  a 
formal  gathering  of  their  tribe  in  1660.155  For  the  account 
of  it  we  are  indebted  folely  to  Hubbard,  it  is  believed ;  one 
of  the  leaffc  trufiworthy  of  our  early  hiftorians.  No  evi¬ 
dence  is  to  be  found,  outfide  his  pages,  that  fuch  a  meeting 
of  the  Penacooks  was  held,  or  any  fpeech  uttered. 

But  if  all  queftion  on  this  point  were  waived,  and  the 
language  attributed  to  the  chieftain  admitted  to  have  been 
fpoken  by  him,  does  our  acquaintance  with  the  oratorical 
productions  of  the  aborigines  juftify  us  in  giving  them 
fuch  literal  credence,  as  to  venture  to  fettle  doubtful  hiftori- 
cal  queftions  upon  the  faith  of  them  ?  On  the  contrary,  is 
it  not  proverbial  that  they  are  ufually  couched  in  extrava¬ 
gant,  figurative  expreffions,  and  calculated  for  producing 
fome  fpecial,  immediate  effeCt.  without  regard  to  accuracy 
of  fiatement  ? 

Certainly,  if  Paffaconaway  afferted  that  at  the  date  of  this 
deed  he  was  an  oppofer  of  the  Englifh,  he  wofully  mifrep- 
refented  the  truth.  Chriftopher  Levitt  fpeaks  of  having 
met.  and  dealt  with  him,  under  the  name  of  Conway,  in 
1623,  fix  years  before  that  time  ;  and  he  was  then  entirely 
friendly.156  William  Wood,  who  lived  in  this  country  from 
1629  to  1633,  mentions  him  as  a  noted  necromancer,  but 
without  any  intimation  that  he  was  hoftile  or  unfriendly.157 

Thomas 


154  Dr.  Bouton’s  argument.  166  Voyage  to  New  England,  in  28 

165  Hubbard’s  Indian  Wars  (ed.  of  Mafs.  Hift.  Soc.  Collections,  173-4. 
1801),  67.  157  New  England’s  ProfpeCt,  ed.  of 

the  Prince  Society,  92,  78. 


Was  it  Spurious  f 


121 


Thomas  Morton,  who  was  here  at  fundry  times  between 
1622  and  1630,  alludes  to  him  as  a  “witch,”  but  alfo  as  a 
“  man  of  the  belt  note  and  eftimation  in  all  thefe  parts.”  158 

The  firft  mention  of  Paffaconaway  by  Winthrop  is  under 
date  of  1632,  when  he  is  credited  with  fetching  back  an  In¬ 
dian  of  another  tribe,  who  had  killed  an  Englifhman  in  the 
wigwam  of  a  Penacook.  Surely,  the  capture  and  furrender 
of  a  red  man,  that  juftice  might  be  done  him  by  the  whites, 
was  the  very  reverfe  of  unfriendlinefs.159 

It  has  been  pointed  out,  as  further  proof  of  Paffacona¬ 
way ’s  jealoufy  of  the  Englifh,  that  he  did  not  come  in  and 
fubmit  to  the  Maffachufetts  government  till  the  year  1644.160 
But  that  cannot  imply  that  he  was  unwilling  to  allow  the 
Englifh  to  fettle  on  his  territory ;  for  it  is  upon  record  that 
two  years  previoufly,  in  1642,  Paffaconaway  confented  to 
the  fale  by  Paffaquo  and  Saggahew  of  the  fite  of  Haver¬ 
hill,  to  be  occupied  by  the  whites.161 

It  is  poffible  that  Paffaconaway,  who  was  very  aged  at 
the  time  of  his  reputed  fpeech,  may  in  early  life  have  been 
oppofed  to  the  Englifh,  of  whom  fome  unfavorable  fpeci- 
mens,  no  doubt,  had  appeared  on  thefe  fhores  ;  but  it  is 
clear  that  at  the  time  of  the  execution  of  the  Wheelwright 
deed,  and  for  fome  years  before,  he  was  on  perfectly  amica¬ 
ble  terms  with  them. 

3.  It  is  attempted  to  be  fhown  that  various  anachronifms 
exift  in  the  memorandum  of  delivery  of  poffeffion,  fubfcribed 

by 

158  New  Englifh  Canaan,  Force’s  ed.  160  Dr.  Bouton’s  Argument. 

25,  28.  161  Chafe’s  Hitt.  Haverhill,  Mafs.  46. 

15£>  1  Savage’s  Winthrop,  *89. 

16 


122  The  Wheelwright  Deed  of  1629; 

by  feven  Englifh  witneffes,  in  fundry  official  capacities,  which 
is  appended  to  the  difputed  deed.162 

The  firft  three  of  the  witneffes  are  Walter  Neal,  governor, 
George  Vaughan,  fadlor,  and  Ambrofe  Gibbons,  trader,  for 
the  Company  of  Laconia. 

With  regard  to  Neal,  it  is  contended  that  he  was  never 
in  this  country  till  he  arrived  here  in  the  bark  “Warwick,” 
in  1630.  For  proof  of  this  we  are  referred  to  the  brief  of 
the  Governor  and  Company  of  the  Maffachufetts  Bay,  dated 
the  fixth  of  September,  1676,  in  which  the  ftatement  is  made 
that  Neal  firft  came  over  in  1630.163  But  every  lawyer  knows 
that  fuch  a  brief  is  no  evidence  of  the  matters  it  contains. 
It  is  a  pleading;  a  ftatement  of  the  party’s  cafe  in  the  moft 
favorable  manner ;  and  to  be  proved,  if  the  requifite  evidence 
can  be  had,  —  otherwife  to  go  for  nothing.  It  does  not  ap¬ 
pear  that  any  evidence  of  this  allegation  was  produced. 

If  we  examine  the  brief,  we  ffiall  find  it  in  at  leaffc  one 
other  inftance  entirely  inaccurate  in  a  matter  of  date.  It 
contains  the  ftatement  that  the  feveral  fettlements  in  New 
Hampfhire  voluntarily  fubmitted  to  the  jurifdidtion  of  Maf¬ 
fachufetts,  in  the  year  1641.  Now  it  is  a  matter  of  record 
that  Exeter,  one  of  thofe  fettlements,  did  not  fubmit  until 
1643.  And  it  maybe  added  that  even  then  it  was  with  fuch 
manifeft  reludfance,  that  the  term  “  voluntarily  ”  could  hardly 
be  applied  to  it,  except  in  irony. 

Of  Neal  we  have  information  that  he  was  in  London  in 
February,  1628,  diftreffed  for  the  want  of  money  due  him 

for 

162  1  Savage’s  Winthrop,  2d  ed.  505,  163  1  N.  H.  Provincial  Papers,  332. 

508 — Q — I O. 


Was  it  Spurious  t 


123 


for  military  fervices.104  That  was  the  moment,  furely,  when 
he  would  be  mod  ready  to  engage  in  foreign  or  any  other 
fervice  which  promifed  him  honorable  fupport.  There  is 
believed  to  be  nothing  to  fliow  that  he  might  not  have  come 
here  in  1629,  and  returned  again  the  fame  feafon.  Nothing 
was  more  common  than  fuch  annual  voyages. 

In  regard  to  Gibbons  and  Vaughan,  all  that  need  be  faid 
is,  that  no  one  pretends  to  any  definite  knowledge  when  they 
firft  came  to  this  country. 

But  it  is  urged  that  “  the  grant  to  the  Laconia  Company 
was  not  obtained  till  November,  1629,”  fix  months  after  the 
date  of  the  Wheelwright  deed ;  and  therefore  the  defcrip- 
tion  of  thofe  witneffes  as  officers  of  that  company  is  a  fatal 
incongruity.165 

To  this  it  may  be  replied  that  there  never  was  any  grant 
to  the  Laconia  Company ,  at  all.  There  w7as  a  grant  of  ter¬ 
ritory  under  the  name  of  Laconia,  and  there  was  a  Laconia 
Company ;  but  who  can  tell  whether  the  company  took  its 
name  from  the  grant,  or  the  grant  from  the  company  ?  The 
argument  affumes  the  former ;  of  which  there  is  no  proof. 
The  acceptance  of  a  grant  did  not  confiitute  its  holders  a 
company,  bearing  the  fame  name.  There  was  no  Mafonia 
Company;  no  Maine  Company;  no  New  Hampfhire  Com- 
*  pany,  though  there  were  grants  under  thofe  feveral  defigna- 
tions.  But  if  there  had  firft  been  a  Laconia  Company,  what 
would  be  more  natural  than  that  they  fliould  wifh  to  beftow 
that  name  upon  any  patent  which  they  might  afterwards 
procure  ? 

There 

164  MS.  in  poffeffion  of  C.  W.  Tuttle,  185  1  Savage’s  Winthrop,  2d  ed.  509. 
Efq.  Enlarged  upon  by  Dr.  Bouton. 


124  The  Wheelwright  Deed  of  1629; 

There  is  evidence  that  the  name  of  Laconia  was  at  an 
early  period  commonly,  if  incorrectly,  applied  to  New 
Hampfhire  and  Maine,  —  the  territory,  in  faCt,  which  was 
included  in  the  patent  of  Mafon  and  Gorges,  of  1622.  True, 
the  name  of  Maine  was  fpecified  in  the  grant  as  intended  to 
be  given  to  the  territory,  but  it  never  was  in  faft  applied  to 
it.  Nor  was  it  given  to  the  portion  of  it  lying  eaft  of  the 
Pafcataqua,  until  1641.  By  what  general  name  was  that 
country  known,  in  the  interim?  John  Joffelyn,  the  Englifh 
traveller,  who  was  here  in  1638,  and  wrote  feveral  years 
later,  fays :  “  The  province  of  Maine  (or  the  country  of  the 
Traquoes),  heretofore  called  Laconia  or  New  Some rfetfhire, 
is  a  colony  belonging  to  the  grandfon  of  F.  Gorges.” 166 
There  feems  to  be  fome  confufion  of  places  in  the  mind  of 
the  worthy  voyager,  but  clearly  he  meant  to  affert  that  the 
tradl  which  had  been  known  as  Laconia  was  alfo  called  New 
Somerfetfhire  ;  and  that  it  belonged,  not  to  the  region  about 
the  great  lakes,  but  to  the  territory  by  the  fea.  So  alfo  in 
a  paper  now  in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State  in  Maffa- 
chufetts,  entitled  “  A  Short  View  of  Mrs.  Mafon’s  cafe,” 
her  hufband  is  faid  to  have  been  “inflated  in  fee,  together 
with  Sir  F.  Gorges  and  other  affociates,  in  feverall  other 
Lands,  by  the  name  of  Laconia,  lying  near  Pafcataway  and 
at  Newichawannock.” 167 

Now  if  the  country  around  the  Pafcataqua  was  known 
to  the  earlier  fettlers  as  Laconia,  the  perfons  having  the 
control  of  it  might  well  denominate  themfelves  the  Laconia 

Company ; 

166  Two  Voyages  to  New  England,  167  3  Mafs.  Archives,  181,  2. 
in  23  Mafs.  Hilt.  Soc.  Collections,  342. 


W as  it  Spurious  ? 


125 


Company ;  and  it  is,  at  lead,  as  likely  that  the  name  was 
acquired  from  that  circumftance,  as  that  it  was  derived  from 
the  grant  of  1629. 

But  it  is  doing  no  violence  to  probability  to  fuppofe  that 
the  company  may  have  been  formed  in  anticipation  of  the 
grant,  and  of  courfe  anterior  to  it.  In  that  cafe,  if  there 
had  been  any  unexpected  delay  in  procuring  the  patent  in 
England,  the  company  in  America  might  have  antedated 
it  by  months,  limply  for  that  reafon. 

But  even  if  there  were  good  caufe  to  believe  that  the 
company  received  its  appellation  from  the  grant,  and  was 
formed  fubfequently  to  it,  we  are  not  at  all  certain  that  the 
grant  may  not  have  been  originally  made  before  November, 
1629.  On  referring  to  the  portion  of  the  records  of  the 
Council  of  Plymouth  which  is  ftill  extant,  it  will  be  found 
that  it  was  nothing  uncommon  for  a  patent  once  iffued  to  be 
reiffued  at  a  fubfequent  time.  Thus  it  appears  that  a  patent 
was  fealed  to  Gorges  and  Mafon  the  fourth  of  November, 
1631,  and  on  the  lad  of  February,  the  fucceeding  year,  two 
duplicate  patents  of  the  fame  premifes  were  fealed  to  the 
fame  perfons.  And  on  the  fecond  of  March,  1632,  two 
patents  were  iffued  to  Gorges  and  others,  which  were  the 
fame  as  others  fealed  to  them  on  the  prior  fecond  of  Decem¬ 
ber,  with  the  exception  of  a  partial  change  of  grantees : 
“  So  that  this  patent,”  fays  the  record,  “  is  the  lad  and  true 
patent,  and  the  other  cancelled  and  made  void.”  168  There 
can  be  fcarcely  a  doubt  that  in  each  of  thefe  cafes  the  later 
grant  bore  date  as  of  the  day  it  was  iffued,  so  that  the 

patent 

168  Proceedings  of  American  Antiquarian  Society  for  April,  1867,  103,  105. 


126  The  Wheelwright  Deed  of  1629; 


patent  thereafter  known  and  referred  to  would  be  dated  long 
after  the  land  was  in  reality  firfl  granted.  We  can  have 
no  affurance,  therefore,  that  the  original  patent  of  Laconia 
might  not  have  been  in  exiftence  before  May,  1629.  Un¬ 
fortunately,  there  are  no  means  of  verifying  the  point,  for 
the  records  of  the  Council  of  Plymouth  from  1623  to  1631 
are  not  now  to  be  found. 

From  thefe  confiderations,  however,  it  would  feem  that 
the  mention  of  the  Laconia  Company  as  exifting  in  May, 
1629,  does  not  neceffarily  involve  an  anachronifm,  as  the 
opponents  of  the  deed  have  fuppofed.169 

The  next  two  witneffes  to  the  delivery  of  poffeffion  of  the 

lands  under  the  Wheelwright  deed  are  Richard  Vines,  gov- 

♦ 

ernor,  and  Richard  Bonighton,  affiftant,  of  the  plantation  of 
Saco.  In  relation  to  thefe  it  is  objedted,  that  Saco  was  not 
fettled  till  fome  years  after  1629,  and  that  neither  Vines 
was  appointed  governor,  nor  Bonighton  affiftant,  thereof, 
until  1639.170  But  it  is  pretty  well  underftood  that  Vines 
vifited  Saco  as  early  as  1609,  and  again  feven  years  after, 
“for  the  exprefs  objedt  of  exploring  the  country  with  a 
view  to  form  a  fettlement ;  ”  and  hiftorians  affure  us  that  a 
plantation  of  a  permanent  charadter  was  begun  there  in 
1623  or  1624.171  Some  form  of  government  muft  have  been 

then 


169  I  am  aware  that  John  S.  Jennefs, 
Efq.,  in  the  fecond  edition  of  his  pict- 
urefque  Hiftory  of  the  Itles  of  Shoals, 
iflued  fince  this  paper  was  originally 
prepared,  reprefents  the  Laconia  Com¬ 
pany  as  formed  on  the  ruins  of  the 
Canada  Company,  and  as  commencing 
operations  in  1630 ;  p.  58.  I  under- 
ftand,  however,  that  the  ftatement  is 
founded  upon  probabilities,  and  not 


upon  pofitive  evidence.  The  Laconia 
Company  may  ftill  have  been  in  exift¬ 
ence,  de  fafto,  before  the  Laconia  pat¬ 
ent  of  November,  1629,  was  obtained, 
and  long  before  it  was  even  in  con¬ 
templation  to  undertake  extended  opera¬ 
tions. 

170  1  Savage’s  Winthrop,  2d  ed.  510. 

171  Folfom’s  Hift.  Saco,  &c.  22.  1 

Williamfon’s  Hift.  Maine,  206,  216,  227. 


Was  it  Spurious  f 


127 


then  adopted,  and  fome  officers  appointed,  whofe  duties 
would  neceffarily  correfpond  with  thofe  of  governor  and 
affiftant.  No  one  can  now  fay  who  and  what  thofe  officers 
were  :  can  any  one  fay  who  and  what  they  were  not  ? 

Folfom,  in  his  Hiftory  of  Saco  and  Biddeford,  alludes 
to  the  affault  made  upon  the  integrity  of  the  Wheelwright 
deed,  which  impreffed  him,  as  it  has  many  others  who  have 
not  thoroughly  inveftigated  the  fubjedt,  as  unanfwerable ; 
but  adds :  “  The  evidence  drawn  from  the  atteflation  of 
Vines  and  Bonighton  is,  however,  the  leaft  fatisfadtory.  The 
inhabitants  of  the  plantation  of  Saco  were  evidently  fubjedt 
to  a  local  jurifdidtion  (fimilar  to  that  eftablifhed  at  Exeter) 
at  lead  as  early  as  1630,  and  perhaps  earlier,  before  a 
general  government  exifted ;  and  who  fo  likely  to  be  their 
governor  and  affiftant  as  Vines  and  Bonighton?  ”172 

The  deed  can  hardly  be  proved  fpurious  by  this  evidence. 
The  remaining  two  witneffes  of  delivery  of  poffeffion  are 
Thomas  Wiggin,  agent,  and  Edward  Hilton,  fteward  of  the 
Plantation  at  Hilton’s  point.  It  is  afferted  of  Wiggin,  as 
it  has  been  of  feveral  others  of  the  witneffes,  on  no  better 
bafts  than  want  of  knowledge,  that  he  was  probably  not  in 
this  country  in  1629.173  But,  as  we  have  already  obferved, 
the  lack  of  evidence,  refpedling  the  affairs  of  New  Hamp- 
fhire  at  this  nebulous  period,  warrants  no  inference  of  value 
in  fettling  a  doubtful  hiftorical  point.  It  is  fheer  prefump- 
tion  to  offer  in  fupport  of  an  indidtment,  teftimony  which 
only  juftifies  us  in  writing  “  ignoramus  ”  upon  it. 

With  regard  to  Hilton,  it  is  argued  that  he  could  not 

have 

172  Folfom’s  Hift.  Saco,  &c .  320.  173  1  Savage’s  Winthrop,  2d  ed.  510. 


128  The  W heelwright  Deed  of  1629; 

have  figned  the  deed,  officially ,  until  his  patent  was  obtained 
for  the  plantation  at  Hilton’s  point;  and  this  did  not 
happen  till  the  fucceeding  year.174  But  why  ?  There  was  a 
plantation  at  Hilton’s  point  long  before  May,  1629,  and 
Edward  Hilton  was  in  fa£l  one  of  the  principal  managers 
of  it.  Why  fhould  he  not  style  himfelf  “  tteward  ” —  furely 
not  a  very  prefuming  title  —  when  he  was  to  all  intents  and 
purpofes  actually  fuch?  Would  a  patent  for  the  land  give 
him  any  better  right  to  do  fo?  But  it  feems  a  watte  of 
words  to  dilate  on  this  exception. 

It  is  further  contended,  that  Hilton  could  never  have 
attefted  a  deed  which  “  dettroyed  all  his  title  to  ettate,  in  the 
enjoyment  of  which  he  had  peacefully  lived  fix  or  feven 
years :  ”  and  a  fomewhat  fimilar  objection  is  raifed  with 
regard  to  Neal  and  others  who  reprefented  Mafon  and 
Gorges,  the  whole  of  whofe  rights  between  the  Merrimac 
and  the  Pafcataqua,  it  is  urged,  “  mutt  be  defeated  by  this 
deed.” 175 

In  order  to  ettimate  aright  the  weight  of  thefe  fuggef- 
tions,  it  is  neceffary  to  inquire  firft  into  the  actual  force 
and  effedt  of  deeds  of  lands  from  the  Indians.  Thefe 
inttruments  have  been  commonly  fpoken  of  as  “  convey¬ 
ances,”  and  would  naturally  be  regarded  by  perfons  who 
had  given  no  fpecial  examination  to  the  matter,  as  capable 
of  pafting  the  title  to  lands,  like  deeds  among  ourfelves. 
But  this  is  a  very  erroneous  idea. 

The  law  upon  the  fubjedt  appears  to  have  been  well 
fettled  and  underttood  from  the  earliett  period  in  the  hittory 

of 

174  Dr.  Bouton’s  argument.  175  1  Savage’s  Winthrop,  2d  ed.  510,  496. 


Was  it  Spurious  f 


129 


of  Englifh  emigration  to  this  country.  The  General  Court 
of  Maffachufetts  laid  it  down  in  1638,  in  a  cafe  arifing 
under  one  of  the  deeds  to  Wheelwright,  as  follows :  The 
Indians  have  only  a  natural  right  to  the  lands  which  they 
do  or  can  improve,  and  the  reft  of  the  country  is  open  to 
any  who  can  or  will  improve  it.  Confequently,  the  Court 
infifted  that  a  deed  of  the  Indians,  purporting  to  convey 
lands  which  they  had  not  improved,  conftituted  no  title 
whatever  againft  a  prior  occupation  by  white  fettlers.176 

In  Dane’s  Abridgment,  a  work  of  the  higheft  authority, 
the  law  as  it  has  always  exifted,  in  regard  to  this  matter, 
is  fully  dated.  It  may  be  fummarized  thus:  No  ftatute 
has  ever  recognized  the  capacity  of  an  Indian,  in  his  na¬ 
tive  condition,  to  own  or  be  feized  of  wild  or  uncultivated 
lands,  or  to  have  a  right  of  foil  and  fee  therein.  Between 
the  cafe  of  an  Indian  and  of  a  citizen,  therefore,  there  is 
this  material  diftindtion,  that  while  the  latter  by  a  deed  with 
the  proper  formalities  may  convey  fuch  lands,  the  former 
cannot ;  his  deed  thereof  paffing  in  law  no  title  whatever.177 

The 

and  a  citizen’s  deed  of  fuch  land, 
founded  in  their  different  rights  to 
fuch  property.  Our  ftatute  law  has 
ever  provided  that  a  deed  duly  exe¬ 
cuted,  acknowleged,  and  recorded,  fhall 
be  fufficient  to  convey  the  lands  con¬ 
tained  in  it,  without  any  other  a6t  or 
ceremony  in  the  law.  This  ftatute  law 
only  applies  to  a  citizen  having  right 
and  power  to  convey ;  that  is,  as  our 
law  has  been  invariably  conftrued,  hav¬ 
ing  feizin  of  the  lands,  but  never  to  an 
Indian,  as  to  wild  lands  ;  for  though 
by  our  law,  as  it  has  flood  fince  1633, 
he  may  have  had  right  to  lands  he  has 
fubdued,  as  above,  and  feizin  of  them, 

yet 


176  1  Savage’s  Winthrop,  *290. 

177  4  Dane’s  Abridgment  of  American 
Law,  68-9.  As  the  work  may  not  be 
readily  acceffible  to  all  hiftorical  ftu- 
dents,  I  fubjoin  the  author’s  language  : 
“§  1 6.  A  law  was  palled  in  1633  that 
feemed  to  recognize  that  an  Indian  in 
his  native  condition  may  be  the  owner 
of,  and  be  feized  of,  the  lands  he  pof- 
feffes  and  improves,  by  his  fubduing 
them ;  but  no  colony,  province,  or 
commonwealth  flatutes  have  ever  rec¬ 
ognized  that  he  can  be  the  owner,  or  be 
feized,  of  wild  and  uncultivated  lands. 
§17.  There  is  a  material  diftindtion 
between  an  Indian  deed  of  wild  land 


1 7 


130  The  Wheelwright  Deed  of  1629; 


The  Rev.  John  Bulkley,  of  Connecticut,  compofed,  in 
1724,  an  effay  upon  the  aborigines’  rights  to  the  lands  in 
America,  and  the  titles  derived  from  them.  His  conclufions 
are  in  fubftance  the  fame :  That  the  natives  had  a  good 
claim  only  to  fuch  lands  as  they  fubdued  or  improved,  and 
that  the  Englifh,  with  the  royal  allowance,  had  undoubted 
right  to  enter  upon  and  appropriate  all  of  the  country 
which  was  unimproved  by  the  aborigines ;  and  this  without 
making  them  any  compenfation  or  return  therefor.178 

An  Indian  deed,  therefore,  transferred  a  legal  title  to 
only  fo  much  of  the  foil  as  the  grantors  actually  improved, 
and  was  of  no  validity  fo  far  as  it  affumed  to  grant  wild  or 
uncultivated  lands.  When  it  is  remembered,  that  the 
aborigines  reduced  no  part  of  this  continent  to  cultivation, 
except  a  few  trifling  patches  for  railing  corn  and  beans,  the 
remark  of  Andros,  that  he  regarded  an  Indian  deed  no 
more  than  the  fcratch  of  a  bear’s  paw,  is  feen  to  have  more 
foundation  than  has  generally  been  attributed  to  it. 

The  releafe  of  the  natives  to  the  lands  we  occupy,  was 
obtained,  not  fo  much  as  an  affurance  of  title,  as  an  affur- 


yet  he  has  never  been  confidered  «as 
having  feizin  of  wild  lands  ;  and  there 
is  no  cafe  to  be  found  in  which  a  cor¬ 
rect  lawyer  has  ever  in  a  writ  declared 
on  an  Indian’s  feizin  of  fuch  lands. 

.  .  .  Hence  an  Indian  deed  never  has 
had  power  to  convey  wild  lands  for 
want  of  that  kind  of  feizin  our  law 
views  as  effential  to  give  a  power  to 
convey.  A  citizen  by  our  law  may 
have  the  right  of  foil  and  fee  in  wild, 
lands  ;  an  Indian  in  his  native  Hate 
cannot :  and  fo  has  the  law  of  England, 
of  America,  and  of  Chriltendom  viewed 


ance 

his  cafe  from  the  firft  difcovery  of 
America  ;  his  deed  has  been  viewed 
only  as  extinguifhing  his  claim,  and  as 
giving  quoad  him  to  the  grantee,  a 
right  of  peaceable  entry,  and  not  as  pall¬ 
ing  the  foil  and  fee.  .  .  .  Every  Englifh- 
man  who  came  to  America  viewed  his 
Englifh  patent  as  giving  him  the  legal 
title  to  the  land  ;  and  he  fettled  with 
the  Indians  as  of  convenience,  of  equity 
or  humanity,  and  not  as  a  matter  of 
law,  effential  to  his  title.” 

178  4  Mafs.  Hilt.  Soc.  Colledtions, 
179,  180. 


JV'as  it  Spurious  f  13  I 

ance  of  their  good  will  and  friendfhip.  This  is  the  afpedfc 
in  which  that  eminent  jurift,  the  late  Chief  Juftice  Smith, 
of  New  Hampfhire,  regarded  Wheelwright’s  purchafes. 
While  there  was  no  pretence  that  any  legal  title  to  the  foil 
was  acquired  by  them,  they  conftituted,  in  his  judgment, 
limply  a  fufficient  licenfe  to  fettle  and  occupy.179  And  in 
the  fame  light  muff  Wheelwright  have  regarded  his  dealings 
with  the  fagamores.  He  never  took  the  trouble  to  regifter 
either  of  his  deeds,  nor  did  he  ever  make  any  conveyance 
of  land  founded  upon  them.  Not  only  this,  but  he  afterwards 
purchafed  from  another  perfon,  and  paid  for,  a  part  of  the 
fame  land.180  If  he  had  confidered  that  the  fee  or  title  to 
the  foil  became  veiled  in  himfelf  by  the  Indians’  deeds,  a 
man  of  his  acknowledged  prudence  and  bufmefs  capacity 
would  have  conducted,  in  thefe  refpedls,  very  differently. 

Such  being  alike  the  law  and  the  popular  underffanding, 
from  the  earlieft  period  of  our  hiftory,  the  notion  that  an 
Indian  deed  might  operate  to  invalidate  a  grant  emanating 
from  the  Crown,  whether  iffued  before  or  after  it,  could 
never  have  entered  any  man’s  imagination.  Edward  Hilton, 
who  had  improved  his  lands  for  years,  and  was  about  to 
take  out  a  patent  for  them  from  the  Council  of  Plymouth, 
would  have  laughed  to  fcorn  any  one  who  had  fuggefted 
that  the  fagamores’  deed  to  Wheelwright  could  put  his  title 
in  jeopardy.  And  the  reprefentatives  of  Mafon  and  Gorges 
would  have  had  even  lefs  caufe  for  apprehenfion,  —  if  that 
could  ]?e,  —  for  their  principals’  claims  were  already  fortified 
by  occupation  and  patent. 

But, 

179  6  N.  H.  Hift.  Soc.  Colle<5tions,  wright,  of  land  in  Hampton,  1647  ;  on 

172-3.  the  Records  of  old  Norfolk  County,  at 

180  Deed  of  Henry  Ambros  to  Wheel-  Salem. 


132  The  Wheelwright  Deed  of  1629; 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  we  can  difcern,  in  the  true  opera¬ 
tion  of  the  Indians’  grants,  fufficient  reafons  for  Hilton 
and  others  interefted  in  New  Hampfhire  defiring  that  their 
lands  fhould  be  included  in  the  Wheelwright  purchafe. 
As  yet,  they  had  no  covenant  that  affured  them  of  the 
natives’  amity  and  confent  to  their  fettlement  here.  By 
the  early  fettlers  it  was  deemed  highly  important  to  procure 
fuch  an  affu ranee.  The  Wheelwright  deed  gave  it  to  them. 
The  benefits  of  peaceful  and  unmolefted  refidence  upon  the 
foil  were  expreffly  extended  to  all  the  Englifh  fettlers  upon 
the  territory  which  it  included.181 

This  view  of  the  effect  of  Indian  deeds  fhows  the  little 
importance  that  is  to  be  attached  to  the  exceptions  in  re¬ 
gard  to  the  immenfe  “  domain  ”  which  the  “  liberal  Saga¬ 
mores  ”  fold  to  Wheelwright,  and  to  the  improbability  that 
he  would  buy  and  pay  for  the  land  “twice  over.”  The  na¬ 
tives  were  as  ready,  probably,  to  quit  their  claim  to  mill¬ 
ions  of  acres  as  to  thoufands  ;  and  would  expedt  no  greater 
confideration  for  the  one  than  for  the  other.  The  price 
paid  for  the  grants  of  1638,  Wheelwright,  in  his  depofition 
in  1663,  fiates  to  have  been  ten  or  twelve  pounds;  certainly 
not  an  extravagant  fum  to  throw  away  even  on  “.a  fecond 
purchafe,”  when  we  confider  the  ftrong  inducements  which 
then  exifted  againft  founding  his  fettlement  under  the  firth 
The  deeds  of  1638  covered  far  the  greater  proportion  of 
the  territory  embraced  in  that  of  1629;  and,  unlefs  the  price 
of  real  eftate  had  declined  between  thofe  dates,  the  “kettles, 
victuals,  and  clothing,”  which  made  up  the  confideration  of 

the 


181  See  the  provifions  of  the  deed,  infra. 


» 


Was  it  Spurious  f  133 

the  earlier  deed,  could  not  have  been  fo  numerous  and 
bulky,  as  to  make  it  neceffary  for  us  to  inquire  “  how  they 
could  have  been  conveyed  to  the  falls  of  the  Squamfcot.” 

We  have  now  examined  all  the  arguments  deemed 
worthy  of  ferious  notice,  which  have  been  advanced  to 
prove  that  the  Wheelwright  deed  was  not  genuine.  It 
would,  perhaps,  be  unneceffary  to  go  farther.  The  burden  of 
proof  being  upon  thofe  who  feek  to  impeach  the  inftrument, 
and  they  being  bound  to  make  out  their  cafe  beyond  reafon- 
able  queftion,  it  certainly  feems  that  they  have  failed  in  the 
attempt.  But  there  are  other  confiderations  tending  ftrongly 
to  rebut  the  idea  that  the  Wheelwright  deed  was  a  forgery, 
which  it  may  contribute  to  a  full  underftanding  of  the 
fubjedt  to  mention. 

1.  The  form  and  flyle  of  the  paper  itfelf  conftitute  a  pow¬ 
erful  defence  againft  the  charge.  If  the  deed  was  of  mod¬ 
ern  manufacture,  it  was  the  work  of  no  “  prentice  hand.” 
The  fabricators  of  an  inftrument  capable  of  fuccefsfully 
paffing  the  ordeal  of  a  judicial  inveftigation  on  two  con¬ 
tinents,  and  of  impofing  upon  hiftorians  and  the  public  for 
a  century,  muft  have  poffeffed  remarkable  {kill,  knowledge, 
and  forefight.  In  framing  a  document  which  they  knew 
was  to  be  fubjedted  to  the  fevereft  fcrutiny,  what  would  have 
been  the  probable  and  natural  courfe  of  fuch  forgers  ? 
Being,  of  courfe,  aware  that  Indian  deeds  were  generally 
Ample  and  brief,  and  attefted  by  few  witnefles,  and  that 
every  variation  from  the  ufual  form,  every  unneceffary 
ftatement,  every  needlefs  name,  would  enormoufly  increafe 
the  chances  of  detection,  —  they  would  obvioufly  have  labored 
to  conftrudt  their  fidtitious  inftrument  in  ftridt  conformity 

to 


134-  The  Wheelwright  Deed  of  1629; 

to  cudom,  with  the  fewed  words,  the  lead  amount  of  details, 
and  the  fmalled  number  of  names,  confident  with  the 
objeCt  to  be  fecured  by  it.  But  the  Wheelwright  deed  is 
the  abfolute  reverfe  of  this.  It  is  exceptionally  long  and 
formal,  it  includes  unufual  providons,  it  abounds  in  date- 
ments  of  faCt,  and  it  contains  the  dgnatures  of  no  lefs  than 
nine  English  witneffes,  with  official  titles  appended  to  feven 
of  them ;  and  all  this  without  the  indrument  being  a  whit 
the  more  ufeful  to  the  party  who  produced  it,  for  any  or  all 
of  thefe  extraordinary  features.  And,  laffc,  but  not  lead,  it 
bears  date  on  a  day  of  the  month  which  the  almanac  {hows 
to  have  fallen  on  Sunday;  jud  one  of  the  blunders  which 
an  adroit  rogue  would  have  taken  fpecial  pains  to  avoid. 
In  fhort,  if  the  Wheelwright  deed  was  forged,  we  mud 
affiime  that  the  contrivers  of  it  ufelefdy,  knowingly,  and 
intentionally  loaded  it  with  clews  of  every  kind,  by  which 
its  falfity  'was  liable  and  likely  to  be  difcovered.  In  this 
point  of  view,  the  greater  part  of  the  intrindc  objections 
which  have  been  levelled  at  the  genuinenefs  of  the  paper 
may  be  urged  with  much  greater  force  to  refute,  than  to 
fudain,  the  imputation  of  forgery. 

2.  The  well-known  character  of  the  party,  by  whom  the 
deed  was  put  in  evidence,  forbids  the  hypotheds  that  it  was 
dCtitious. 

Richard  Waldron,  the  defendant  in  the  aCtion  of  Allen 
v.  Waldron,  was  a  merchant,  of  ample  fortune,  whofe  later 
reddence  was  in  Portfmouth.  His  intelligence,  capacity, 
and  integrity  early  introduced  him  into  public  life,  and  for 
long  periods  he  held  the  feveral  podtions  of  Councillor, 
Judge  of  Probate,  and  Chief  Judice  of  the  Court  of  Com¬ 


mon 


Was  it  Spurious  f 


135 


mon  Pleas.  At  the  time  of  the  trial,  he  was  fifty-feven 
years  of  age,  in  the  maturity .  of  his  powers,  and  of  a 
character  firmly  eftablifhed.  Adams,  in  his  Annals  of 
Portfmouth,  refers  to  him  in  this  language :  “  Amidft  thefe 
worldly  honors  and  riches,  he  did  not  negleCt  the  more 
important  concerns  of  religion.  He  was  circumfpect  in  his 
Chriflian  conduCl,  and  endeavored  to  walk  agreeable  to  the 
precepts  of  the  gofpel.”  If  an  eftablifhed  character  for 
integrity  and  virtue  will  not  effectually  fliield  its  poffeffor 
from  the  imputation  of  felony,  after  he  has  lain  in  his  grave 
for  five  generations,  then  no  man’s  name  is  fecure  from 
calumny.182  But  in  the  prefent  cafe,  no  one  has  yet  had  the 
hardihood  to  charge  this  exemplary  magiftrate  with  partici¬ 
pation  in  the  crime  of  forgery.  The  fceptics  have  not 
ventured  to  point  out  any  individual  as  the  offender. 

Of  courfe  it  is  equally  impoffible  that  a  gentleman  of 
Judge  Waldron’s  character  could  have  availed  himself  of 
the  deed,  if  he  had  known  or  had  reafon  to  believe  it  was  a 
forgery.  But  if  it  had  been  forged,  he  could  not  but  have 
known  it.  He  was  born  in  Dover,  in  1650,  only  twenty-one 


,82  Since  this  paper  was  originally 
prepared,  Dr.  Bouton  has  obligingly 
furnifhed  me  with  advance  flips  from  the 
forthcoming  ninth  volume  of  N.  H. 
Provincial  Papers,  containing  the  peti¬ 
tion  of  Elifha  Clark  and  four  others, 
dated  April  4,  1729,  and  addreffed  to 
Governor  Burnet,  in  which  they  allege 
that  they  being  feized,  in  common  with 
Judge  Richard  Waldron,  of  certain 
lands,  he,  on  a  petition  for  partition, 
through  the  aid  of  a  fecond  jury,  “  by 
management  under  the  colour  of  Law  & 
pradtice,  but  not  warranted  by  either,” 
procured  the  fhare  thereof  to  be  fet  off 


years 

to  himfelf  in  feveralty,  which  they  be¬ 
lieved  fhould  juftly  have  been  affigned  to 
them.  I  cannot  learn,  however,  that  the 
allegations  were  ever  fubftantiated  by 
evidence,  or  that  Judge  Waldron  was 
even  put  to  a  hearing  in  the  matter.  If 
the  complaints  of  difappointed  fuitors, 
wholly  unfupported  by  proofs,  were 
allowed  to  weigh  againft  the  charadlers 
of  men,  otherwife  irreproachable,  this 
world  would  be  an  uncomfortable  abid¬ 
ing  place  for  perfons  compelled  to  go 
to  law,  when  they  had  right  and  juftice 
on  their  fide. 


136  The  Wheelwright  Deed  of  1629; 

years  after  the  date  of  the  inftrument,  and  lived  nearly  all 
his  life  upon  the  Pafcataqua.  He  was  the  fon  of  Major 
Richard  Waldron,  many  years  a  prominent  official,  and 
once  Prefident  of  New  Hampffiire;  who  had  come  to  this 
country  “  to  fee  how  the  land  lay,”  three  years  before 
Wheelwright  fettled  at  Exeter,  and  made  his  permanent 
home  in  Dover,  two  years  after  that  event.  Major  Waldron 
was  a  large  landholder  in  the  province,  and  muff  have 
known  the  ftate  of  the  title  to  it,  and  have  heard  every 
rumor  affedting  it.  In  1683,  a  fuit  was  brought  againfl  him 
by  Robert  Mafon,  to  recover  poffeffion  of  his  lands ;  and 
then  he  muft  have  had  preffing  occafion  to  review  all  that 
he  knew  or  had  heard  refpedting  their  original  acquifition. 
At  that  time,  Judge  Waldron,  his  eldeft  fon,  was  thirty-three 
years  of  age,  and,  as  heir  prefumptive  to  his  father,  could 
not  have  failed  to  be  apprifed  of  all  that  the  latter’s  memory 
could  furnifh,  touching  the  title  to  the  foil  of  the  province. 

It  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  Judge  Waldron  was 
informed  of  the  Wheelwright  purchafe  of  1 638,  and  of  that 
of  1629  alfo,  if  there  was  fuch  an  one.  If  he  had  never 
heard  of  the  latter  until  1707,  and  then  a  deed  was  pro¬ 
duced  bringing  it  for  the  firft  time  to  his  notice,  he  would 
naturally  have  been  fufpicious  of  the  paper,  and  have  fub- 
jedted  it  to  the  moffc  careful  examination.  It  was  eafy  for 
him  to  do  this,  thoroughly  and  fatisfadtorily.  The  records 
of  Maine,  New  Hampffiire,  and  Maffachufetts  muft  then 
have  contained,  in  a  fmall  compafs,  the  means  of  verification 
of  many  of  the  dates  and  moft  of  the  fignatures.  It  is 
impoffible  that  a  perfon  of  the  acutenefs,  experience,  and 
acquaintance  with  the  fubjedt,  which  Judge  Waldron  pof- 

feffed, 


Was  it  Spurious? 


137 


feffed,  could  have  given  an  hour’s  inveftigation  to  the  deed, 
without  fatisfying  himfelf  that  it  was  fpurious,  if  fuch  were 
the  fadt. 

It  is  not  credible,  therefore,  that  Waldron  could  have 
ufed  this  paper  in  evidence,  either  through  ignorance  or 
defign,  unlefs  it  was  in  truth  what  it  purported  to  be, — 
the  bona  fide  covenant  of  the  Indian  fagamores  with  John 
Wheelwright. 

3.  There  is  another,  feemingly  unanfwerable,  reafon  to 
dif  believe  that  the  Wheelwright  deed  was  fabricated  to  be 
ufed  in  the  New  Hampfhire  land-controverfy.  There  was 
no  occafion  for  the  deed,  and  no  motive  to  forge  it ;  and 
fuch  a  crime  is  inconceivable  without  a  motive. 

In  the  firft  place,  the  deed  added  no  real  ftrength  to 
Waldron’s  title.  It  has  been  commonly  affumed  that  its 
effedt,  if  genuine,  was  to  convey  to  Wheelwright  and  the 
other  grantees  the  fee  and  right  of  foil  in  the  lands ;  and 
that,  being  dated  earlier  than  Mafon’s  grant  from  the 
Council  of  Plymouth,  of  November,  1629,  it  conftituted 
the  older  and  paramount  title.  This  implies  that  a  prior 
deed  from  the  aborigines  would  prevail  againft  a  fubfequent 
grant  under  the  royal  fandtion.  How  utterly  without 
foundation  this  affumption  is,  appears  from  the  legal  author¬ 
ities  that  have  already  been  cited.  The  Wheelwright  deed 
never  was  ufed  with  fuch  a  purpofe,  and  no  well-informed 
lawyer  would  have  ftultified  himfelf  by  fetting  up  a  claim  of 
that  nature.  In  the  pleading  in  Allen  v.  Waldron,  wherein 
it  is  firft  mentioned,  the  priority  of  its  date  is  not  adverted 
to,  and  there  is  no  hint  that  it  was  fet  up  in  oppofition  to 
Mafon’s  patent  of  1629.183  'phe 

183  2  N.  H.  Provincial  Papers,  526. 

18 


138  The  Wheelwright  Deed  of  1629; 

The  great  defence  which  Waldron  interpofed  to  Allen’s 
claim  was  the  ftatute  of  limitations ;  and  it  feems  to  have 
been  a  perfect  bar.  He  alleged  that  Allen,  and  thofe  under 
whom  he  claimed,  had  not  been  feized  of  the  demanded 
premifes  within  twenty  years,  nor  entitled  within  fixty  years. 
The  former  allegation  was  all  that  was  needed  to  bar  the 
action,  which  was  ejectment ;  and  the  evidence  fully  fuf- 
tained  it. 

The  pleading,  however,  was  informal,  and  contained 
much  irrelevant  matter.  Certainly,  the  Wheelwright  pur- 
chafe  was  no  effential  part  of  it.  It  was  referred  to,  not  as 
conveying  a  title,  but  as  the  explanation  or  foundation  of 
Waldron’s  poffejjion;  and  at  belt  can  be  confidered  as  con¬ 
ferring  what  the  lawyers  call  color  of  title,  which  is  really 
no  title  at  all,  but  ferves  to  define  the  nature  and  extent  of 
the  tenant’s  occupation.  And  in  that  cafe  the  priority  of 
date  made  no  difference  ;  an  Indian  deed  made  after  Mafon’s 
grant  would  have  been  as  good  as  one  made  before  it. 
This  fubject  is  too  technical  to  be  purfued  in  detail ;  but  it 
is  confidently  fubmitted  to  gentlemen  of  the  legal  profeffion, 
that  Waldron’s  cafe  could  not  have  been  ftrengthened  in 
any  important  degree,  by  the  introduction  of  the  Wheel¬ 
wright  deed.  And  this  muft  have  been  perfectly  well  under- 
ftood  by  Charles  Story,  at  leaft,  of  Judge  Waldron’s  coun- 
fel,  who  was  an  able  lawyer,  educated  for  his  profeffion  in 
England. 

But  while  it  is  fafe  to  fay  that  no  man  would  incur  the 
hazard  of  forging  the  Wheelwright  deed  for  the  queftion- 
able,  flight  benefit  it  could  render  to  the  New  Hampfhire 
landholders,  it  by  no  means  follows  that  the  deed,  if  genuine, 

would 


IF as  it  Spurious  f 


139 


would  not  be  put  in  evidence.  It  carried  a  moral  weight, 
and  gave  an  air  of  good  faith  to  the  fettlers’  claims,  which 
no  fuitor  would  throw  away ;  but  which  would  never  have 
fuggefted  the  fabrication  of  the  evidence,  nor  have  com- 
penfated  for  the  rifks  of  forgery. 

But  this  is  not  the  only  ground  on  which  it'  may  be 
faid  that  the  forgery  of  the  Wheelwright  deed  was  im¬ 
probable  becaufe  it  was  unneceffary.  When  the  contro- 
verfy  for  the  poffeffion  of  the  foil  of  New  Hampfhire 
began,  in  1683,  there  might  indeed  have  been  fome  induce¬ 
ment  for  the  inhabitants  to  refort  to  extraordinary  means, 
to  retain  their  homefteads.  Robert  Mafon,  the  claimant, 
had  at  that  time  fufficient  influence  to  fecure  the  appoint¬ 
ment  of  fubfervient  judges,  and  the  feledtion  of  jurors  deaf  to 
every  confideration  but  thofe  of  his  own  intereft.  But  in 
1707,  when  the  cafe  of  Allen  v.  Waldron  was  pending,  all 
this  was  changed.  Neither  court  nor  jury  were  then  creat¬ 
ures  of  the  holder  of  the  patent,  but  might  rather  be  faid 
—  the  jurors  at  leaft  —  to  be  ftrongly  biaffed  againft  him. 
Belknap  fays  that  “  Allen  had  as  little  profpedt  of  fuccefs  in 
the  newly  eflablifhed  courts,  as  the  people  had  when 
Mafon’s  fuits  were  carried  on  under  Cranfield’s  govern¬ 
ment.”184  And  the  adlion  of  the  jury  on  the  trial  of  Allen 
v .  Waldron  in  the  Inferior  Court,  in  April,  1707,  fully  bears 
out  the  ftatement.  The  Wheelwright  deed  was  not  then  in 
evidence,  probably  not  yet  having  been  difcovered  ;  but 
ftill  the  jury,  on  the  other  evidence  in  the  cafe,  not  only 
returned  their  verdidt  for  the  defendant,  but  did  fo  in  the 

very 


184  1  Belknap’s  Hilt.  N.  H.  308. 


140  The  Wheelwright  Deed  of  1629; 

very  teeth  of  the  order  of  the  Queen  in  Council  that  their 
finding  fhould  be  fpecial.  They  were  fent  out  a  fecond 
time,  with  renewed  indrublions  to  obey  the  Queen’s  beheft, 
but  again  returned  into  Court  with  a  general  verdidt  for  the 
defendant :  and  they  refolutely  refufed  to  adl  otherwife.185  It 
was  condudt  worthy  of  men  who  highly  prized,  and  were  re- 
folved  to  maintain,  their  conffitutional  rights  ;  for  the  order 
to  find  fpecially  had  no  warrant  in  the  law  of  the  land,  and 
was  an  adl  of  ufurpation. 

With  Courts  thus  conftituted,  and  jurors  of  fuch  ftern 
fluff,  Judge  Waldron  could  have  had  no  poffible  apprehen- 
fion  that  his  caufe  —  which  was  the  caufe  of  the  people  — 
was  in  the  flighted  hazard,  in  the  Superior  Court,  with  the 
defences,  at  law  and  on  the  fadls,  which  he  already  poffeffed. 
It  could  never  have  occurred  to  him,  or  to  any  other  land¬ 
holder  in  like  fituation,  that  their  caufe  needed  to  be 
flrengthened  by  any  further  proofs ;  and,  lead  of  all,  by  the 
fraudulent  concodlion  of  a  document  that  at  the  bed  could 
afford  no  vital  aid,  and,  if  difcovered,  was  certain  to  over¬ 
whelm  its  producers  and  their  caufe  with  irretrievable  ruin. 

A  candid  examination  of  the  whole  matter  under  condd- 
eration  feems  to  me  to  demondrate,  that  the  arguments  and 
evidence  which  have  been  advanced  to  difcredit  the  Wheel¬ 
wright  deed  are  infufficient  for  the  purpofe ;  but  that,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  prefumptions  in  its  favor  aridng  from 
its  hidorical  claims,  and  the  fadts  which  point  to  its  gen- 
uinenefs,  as  well  as  thofe  which  militate  againd  the  theory 
of  forgery,  are  of  paramount  weight,  and  ought  to  prevail. 

The 


185  2  N.  H.  Provincial  Papers,  520-1. 


IFas  it  Spurious  f 


141 


The  accufation  of  forgery,  as  the  cafe  ftands,  fliould  in 
my  judgment  be  pronounced,  in  the  language  of  the 
Scottifh  law,  “  not  proven.”  But  for  one,  I  hold  myfelf  at 
liberty  to  follow  where  the  evidence  may  lead.  Time  will 
furely  add  to  our  means  of  knowledge,  as  it  has  already  fhed 
much  light  on  the  quedion  fmce  it  was  fird  mooted. 
Perhaps  the  difputed  document  itfelf  may  be  exhumed  from 
fome  forgotten  depofitory,  and  put  an  end  to  fpeculation. 
In  the  prefent  imperfedt  date  of  our  knowledge  it  is  ridicu¬ 
lous  to  dogmatize  upon  the  fubjedt.  Holding  the  mind 
open  to  receive  new  fadts,  and  the  judgment  free  to  weigh 
them  without  prejudice,  is  the  only  fure  method  to  enable 
us  to  avoid  perplexing  dilemmas,  and  to  difcover  the  road 
at  lad  to  truth. 


THE  WHEELWRIGHT  DEED. 


HE  REAS  wee  the  Sagamores  of  Penacook, 
Pentucket,  Squamfquot  &  Nuchawanick,  are 
Inclined  to  have  ye  Englifh  Inhabitt  amongft 
us,  as  they  are  amongft  our  Countrymen  in 
the  Maffachucets  bay,  by  wch  means  wee  hope 
in  time  to  be  ftrengthned  againft  our  Enemyes  the  Tar- 
ratens,  who  yearly  doth  us  Damage ;  Likewife  being  Per- 
fwaided  y1  itt  will  bee  for  the  good  of  us  and  our  Pofterety, 
&cb  To  that  end  have  att  a  generall  meeting  (att  Squam¬ 
fquot  on  Pifcataqua  River,)  wee  the  aforef1  Sagamores  wth 
a  univerfall  Confent  of  our  fubjedls,  doe  Covenant  and 
agree  wth  the  Englifh  as  followeth :  Now  Know  all  men  by 
thefe  P refen ts  that  wee  Paffaconaway,  Sagamore  of  Pena¬ 
cook,  Runawitt,  Sagamore  of  Pentucket,  wahangnonawitt, 
Sagamore  of  Squamfcott,  and  Rowls,  Sagamore  of  New- 
chawanick,  for  a  Compitent  Valluation  in  goods  allready 
Received  in  Coats,  Shurts  &  vidtualls,  and  alfoe  for  ye 
Confiderations  aforefd  doe,  (according  to  ye  Limits  and 
bounds  hereafter  granted,)  give,  grant,  bargaine,  fell,  Releafe, 
Rattafie  and  Confirme,  unto  John  Whelewright  of  ye  Maffa¬ 
chucets 


144  The  Wheelwright  Deed. 

chucets  baye  Late  of  England,  A  minifter  of  ye  Gofpel, 
Auguftin  Story,  Thom8  Wite  Wm  Wentworth  and  Thom8 
Levitt,  all  of  ye  Maffachucetts  baye  in  New-England,  to  them 
their  he  ires  and  Affignes  forever,  all  that  part  of  ye  maine 
Land  bounded  by  the  River  of  Pifcataqua  and  the  River  of 
Merrimack,  that  is  to  fay,  to  begin  att  Newchewanack  ffalls 
in  Pifcataqua  River  aforefd,  and  foe  Downe  fd  River  to 
the  fea,  and  foe  alongft  the  fea  fhore  to  merrimack  River, 
and  foe  up  along  fd  River  to  the  falls  att  Pentucett  aforefd, 
and  from  fd  Pentucet  ffalls  upon  a  North  weft  Line  twenty 
Englifh  miles  into  the  woods,  and  from  thence  to  Run 
upon  a  Streight  Line  North  Eaft  &  South  Weft  till  meete 
wth  the  maine  Rivers  that  Runs  down  to  Pentucket  falls  & 
Newchewanack  ffalls,  and  ye  fd  Rivers  to  be  the  bounds  of 
the  fd  Lands  from  the  thwart  Line  or  head  Line  to  ye 
aforefd  ffalls,  and  ye  maine  Channell  of  each  River  from 
Pentucket  &  Newchewanack  ffalls  to  the  maine  fea  to  bee 
the  fide  bounds,  and  the  maine  Sea  betweene  Pifcataqua 
River  And  Merrimack  River  to  be  the  Lower  bounds,  and 
the  thwart  or  head  Line  that  runs  from  River  to  river  to  be 
ye  uper  bound;  Togeather  wth  all  Hands  wthin  fd  bounds,  as 
alfoe  the  lies  of  Sholes  foe  Called  by  the  Englifh,  togeather 
wth  all  Proffitts,  Advantages  and  Appurtenances  whatfoever 
to  the  fd  tradf  of  Land  belonging  or  in  any  wayes  appef- 
taineing;  Referveing  to  our  Selves,  Liberty  of  makeing  ufe 
of  our  old  Planting  Land,  as  alfoe  ffree  Liberty  of  Hunting, 
ffifhing  and  fowling ;  and  itt  is  Likewife  wth  thefe  Provifeos 
ffollowing  vizi 

Firft,  that  ye  fd  John  Wheelewright  fliall  wthin  ten  years 
affter  the  date  hereof  fett  Down  wth  a  Company  of  Englifh 

and 


The  Wheelwright  Deed.  145 

and  begin  a  Plantation  att  Squamfcot  ffalls  In  Pifcataqua 
River  aforefd. 

Secondly,  that  what  other  Inhabitants  fhall  Come  & 
Live  on  f(l  Tradl  of  Land  Amongft  them  from  Time  to 
Time  and  att  all  times,  fhall  have  and  Enjoye  the  fame 
benefitts  as  the  fd  Whelewright  aforefd. 

Thirdly,  that  If  att  any  time  there  be  a  numbr  of  People 
amongft  them  that  have  a  mind  to  begin  a  new  Plantation, 
that  they  be  Encouraged  foe  to  doe,  and  that  noe  Plantation 
Exceede  in  Lands  above  ten  Englifh  miles  Squaire,  or  fuch 
a  Proportion  as  amounts  to  ten  miles  Squaire. 

Fourthly,  that  ye  aforefd  granted  Lands  are  to  be  Divided 
into  Townfhipps  as  People  Increafe  and  appeare  to  Inhabitt 
them,  and  that  noe  Lands  fhall  be  granted  to  any  pticular 
pfon  but  what  fhall  be  for  a  Townfhip,  and  what  Lands 
wthin  a  Townfhip  is  granted  to  any  Perticuler  Persons  to 
be  by  vote  of  ye  major  part  of  ye  Enhabitants  Legally  and 
ordrly  fettled  in  fd  Townfhip. 

Fifthly,  for  manageing  and  Regulateing  and  to  avoide 
Contentions  amongft  them,  they  are  to  be  under  the  Gover¬ 
nment  of  the  Collony  of  the  Maffachucetts,  (their  neighbours,) 
and  to  obferve  their  Laws  and  ordrs  untill  they  have  a  fettled 
Goverment  Amongft  themfelves. 

Sixthly,  wee  the  aforefd  Sagamores  and  our  Subjects  are 
to  have  free  Liberty  (wthin  the  aforefd  granted  tradl  of 
Land)  of  ffifhing,  fowling,  hunting  &  Planting  &c. 

Sevently  and  Laftly  every  Townfhip  wthin  the  aforefaid 
Limits  or  tradt  of  Land  that  hereafter  fhall  be  fettled,  fhall 
Paye  to  Paffaconaway  our  Cheife  Sagamore  that  now  is,  & 
to  his  fucceffors  for  ever,  If  Lawfully  Demanded,  one  Coate 

of 


l9 


146  The  Wheelwright  Deed. 

of  Trucking  Cloath  a  year  &  every  yeare  for  an  Acknowl- 
edgement,  and  alfoe  fhall  Paye  to  mr  John  Whelewright 
aforef d,  his  heires  and  fucceffors  forever,  If  Lawfully  De¬ 
manded,  two  bufhills  of  Indian  Corne  a  yeare  for  and  in  Con- 
fideration  of  faid  Whelewrights  great  Paines  &  Care,  as 
alfoe  for  ye  Charges  he  have  been  att  to  obtain  this  our  grant 
for  himfelfe  and  thofe  afore  mentioned,  and  the  Inhabitants 
that  fhall  hereafter  fettle  In  Townfhips  on  ye  afore  faid  granted 
Premifes ;  And  wee  the  aforefd  Sagamores,  Paffaconaway, 
Sagamore  of  Penecook,  Runawitt,  Sagamore  of  Pentucet, 
Wahangnonawitt,  Sagamore  of  Squaamfcott,  and  Rowls, 
Sagamore  of  Newchewanack,  doe  by  thefe  Prefents  Rattafie 
and  Confirme  all  ye  afore  granted  and  bargained  Premifes 
and  Trad  of  Land  aforefd,  (excepting  &  Referveing  as  afore 
Excepted  &  Referved  &  the  Provifeos  aforefd  fullfilled,) 
wth  all  the  Meadow  and  Marfh  grounds  therein,  Togeather 
wth  all  the  mines,  Mineralls  of  What  Kind  or  Nature  foever, 
with  all  the  Woods,  Timber  and  Timber  Trees,  Ponds, 
Rivers,  Lakes,  runs  of  Water  or  Water  Courfes  thereunto 
belonging,  with  all  the  ffreedome  of  ffifhinge,  ffowlinge  and 
Hunting,  as  our  felves  with-  all  other  benefitts,  Proffitts, 
Priviledges  and  Appurtenances  Whatfoever  thereunto,  of 
all  and  any  Part  of  the  faid  Trad  off  Land  belonging  or  in 
any  wayes  Appertaineinge,  unto  him  the  faid  John  Whele¬ 
wright,  Auguftin  Storer,  Thomas  Wite,  William  Went¬ 
worth  &  Thomas  Levitt  and  their  heires  forever  as 
aforef'1.  To  have  and  to  hold  ye  fame  As  their  owne 
Proper  Right  and  Intereft,  without  the  Lead  Difturbance, 
molleftation  or  Troble  of  us,  our  heires,  Execcutors  and 
Adminiftrators,  to  and  with  the  faid  John  Whelewright, 

Auguftin 


The  Wheelwright  Deed. 


H7 


Auguftin  Storer,  Thomas  Wite,  William  Wentworth  and 
Thomas  Levitt,  their  heires,  Execcutors,  Adminiffcrators  and 
affignes  and  other  the  Englifh  that  fhall  Inhabitt  there  And 
theire  heires  and  affignes  forever,  fhall  Warrant  Maine taine 
and  Defend.  In  Wittnes  whereof  wee  have  Hereunto  fett 
our  hands  and  feales  the  Sevententh  day  of  May  1629, 
And  in  the  ffifth  yeare  of  King  Charles  his  Reigne  over 
England  &ch 

Signed,  Sealed  &  Delivered 
In  Prefents  off  us : 


Wadargascom 

Mistonobite 


mark 

mark 


John  Oldham, 
Samll  Sharpe, 


Passaconaway 

Runawit 

Wahangnonawit 

Rowls 


V 

h 

t 


mark 

mark 

mark 


Memoranda  on  ye  Sevententh  day  of  maye  one  thou- 
fand  fix  hundred  twenty  &  nine,  In  the  ffifth  year  of  the 
Reigne  of  our  Sovereigne  Lord  Charles  King  of  England, 
Scotland,  ffrance  &  Ireland,  Defendr  of  ye  ffaith  &c^  Wa¬ 
hangnonawit,  Sagamore  of  Squamfcot  in  Pifcataqua  River, 
did  in  behalfe  of  himfelfe  and  the  other  Sagamores  afore¬ 
mentioned  then  Prefent,  Delivr  Quiett  &  Peaceable  Poffef- 
fion  of  all  ye  Lands  mentioned  in  the  wthin  writen  Deed, 
unto  the  wthin  named  John  Whelewright  for  the  ends 
wthin  mentioned,  in  Prefents  of  us  Walter  Nele,  Gover¬ 
ned 


1 48  The  Wheelwright  Deed. 


ner,  Geo.  Vaughan,  ffacktor,  and  ambros  Gibins,  Trader, 
for  ye  Company  of  Laconia;  Richd  Vines,  Governer,  and 
Richd  bon i than,  Affiftant  of  ye  Plantation  of  Sawco ;  Thom8 
Wiggin,  agent,  and  Edward  hilton,  Steward  of  the  Plant¬ 
ation  of  Hiltons  Point,  and  was  figned  fealed  &  Delivered 
In  our  Prefents. 

In  Wittnefs  whereof  wee  have  hereunto  fett  our  hands 
the  day  &  yeare  above  Written. 


Richd  Vines,  Walter  Neale, 
Rich®  Bonithon,  Geo.  Vaughan, 
Thom8  Wiggin,  Ambrose  Gibbins. 
Edward  Hilton, 


(From  the  Rockingham  Registry.) 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


HE  Wheelwright  Indian  deed  of  1629  has 
been  printed,  with  various  approximations  to¬ 
wards  correCtnefs,  in  1  Belknap’s  Hiftory  of 
New  Hampfhire,  Appendix,  No.  1,  in  1  Haz¬ 
ard’s  Hiftorical  Collections,  271,  and  in  1 
New  Hampfhire  Provincial  Papers,  56.  In  none  of  thofe 
works  are  the  peculiar  marks  or  totems  of  the  fubfcribing 
fagamores  properly  reprefented.  The  only  publication  in 
which  they  have  been  corredtly  given  is  Potter’s  Hiftory  of 
Manchefter,  N.H.,  56c  where  the  deed  was  alluded  to,  but 
not  inferted  at  length.  The  copy  of  the  deed  which  is 
included  in  the  prefent  volume  has  been  carefully  compared 
with  that  in  the  regiftry  of  deeds  of  Rockingham  County, 
N.H.,  and  is  believed  to  conform  to  it  in  all  particulars. 

The  Indian  deeds  of  1638  firft  appeared  in  print  (in  a 
permanent  form  at  leaft)  in  1  New  Hampfhire  Hiftorical 
Society’s  Collections,  147,  from  which  they  were  tranfcribed 
without  alteration  (except  the  omiffion  of  the  totems)  into 
1  New  Hampfhire  Provincial  Papers,  134-5.  Thofe  copies 
contain  fome  inaccuracies,  the  moft  ferious  of  which  are 

pointed 


I  50  Bibliography . 

pointed  out  in  note  47,  in  this  volume.  A  very  juft' idea 
of  the  originals  can  be  formed  from  the  facsimiles  here¬ 
with  given. 

Of  Wheelwright’s  Faft-day  Sermon,  of  1637,  two  copies 
exift  in  manufcript.  One,  which  lacks  the  earlier  pages,  is 
in  the  poffeffion  of  the  Maffachufetts  Hiftorical  Society; 
the  other,  which  is  complete,  is  in  the  office  of  the  Secre¬ 
tary  of  State  of  Maffachufetts.  From  the  former  a  tran- 
fcript  (the  miffing  portion  being  fupplied  from  the  latter) 
has  been  printed,  in  its  antique  form,  in  the  Proceedings 
of  the  Maffachufetts  Hiftorical  Society  for  1866-7,  and  in 
the  Hiftorical  Magazine  for  April,  1867;  and  in  modern 
orthography  in  the  Bofton  Panoplift  for  July  and  Auguft 
of  the  fame  year. 

No  complete  tranfcript  from  the  copy  in  the  Secretary’s 
office  has  hitherto  been  printed. 

The  two  copies,  though  in  fubftance  alike,  yet  prefent  an 
infinite  number  of  trifling  differences.  It  is  not  known 
that  one  has  any  greater  claims  to  authority  than  the  other. 
Neither  is  in  the  handwriting  of  Wheelwright,  but  both 
poffefs  every  intrinfic  mark  of  having  been  made  at  or  near 
the  time  when  the  original  was  delivered.  The  one  in  the 
Secretary’s  office  appears  to  have  been  the  work  of  a  perfon 
better  educated,  and  certainly  more  accuftomed  to  the  pen, 
than  was  the  fcribe  of  the  Society’s  copy.  As  well  on 
account  of  the  fuperior  character  of  the  manufcript,  as  in 
order  that  both  copies  fhould  be  acceffible  in  printed  form, 
that  in  the  Secretary’s  office  has  been  followed  here ;  the 
few  evident  clerical  omiffions  being  fupplied  from  the 
printed  copy  of  the  Hiftorical  Society’s  manufcript. 


Of 


Bibliography .  I  ^  I 

Of  Mercurius  Americanus  only  a  Tingle  edition  was  pub- 
lifhed.  It  is  reproduced  in  this  volume  with  remarkable 
fidelity.  RefpeCling  its  authorfhip,  it  is  furprifing  that  there 
fhould  have  been  any  queftion.  The  Rev.  Dr.  George  E. 
Ellis,  when  he  prepared  the  Life  of  Anne  Hutchinfon  for 
Sparks’s  American  Biography,  doubted,  however,  if  it  were 
the  production  of  the  Rev.  John  Wheelwright;  and  both 
Mr.  Savage,  in  his  Genealogical  Dictionary,  and  Mr.  Felt,  in 
his  Ecclefiaftical  Hiftory,  attribute  the  work  to  a  fuppofitive 
Ton  of  Wheelwright.  Perhaps  the.  difficulty  was  caufed  by  the 
circumftance  that  upon  the  title  of  Mercurius  Americanus 
the  name  of  the  writer  appears  as  John  Wheelwright,  junior. 
But  to  the  dedication  are  fubfcribed  the  initials,  and  to  the 
introduction  the  full  name,  of  John  Wheelwright,  without 
the  pofifix.  The  word  “junior”  may  have  been  added 
upon  the  title-page  by  miftake,  or  becaufe  there  was  an 
older  perfon  in  England  bearing  the  fame  name.  But  the 
intrinfic  evidence,  that  the  American  John  Wheelwright 
compofed  the  work,  Teems  irrefiftible.  The  learning  and 
the  logic,  the  perfonal  feeling  and  the  knowledge  of  aCtors 
and  events,  all  indicate  his  handiwork,  and  could  have 
emanated  from  no  other  individual. 

Wheelwright’s  laft  Will  is  not  known  to  have  been  before 
publifhed,  but  is  thought  to  poffefs  fufficient  interefi  to 
warrant  its  introduction  here.  Some  notes  would  have 
perhaps  been  added,  in  relation  to  the  tefiator’s  immediate 
defendants,  had  the  editor  not  been  early  apprifed  that 
a  hiftory  of  the  Wheelwright  family  was  in  preparation, 
with  which  he  had  no  difpofition  to  interfere. 


A 

SERMON 


Preached  at  Boston  in  New  England  vpon  a  Fast  Day 

THE  XVIth  OF  JANUARY  1 636, 

BY  M*  JOHN  WHEELEWRIGHT. 

Math  :  the  9.  15. 

And  Jefus  faid  vnto  them,  can  the  Children  of  the  bridechamber  mourne,  as 
long  as  the  Bridegroome  is  wth  them  ?  but  the  dayes  will  come,  when  the  Bride- 
groome  fhall  be  taken  from  them  &  then  they  fhall  faft. 

UR  bleffed  Lord  &  Sauior  Jefus  (Thrift,  though 
he  was  the  moft  innocent  that  euer  was,  fo  that 
they  wch  hated  him,  hated  him  wthout  a  caufe, 
yet  notwthftanding  the  wicked  world,  they 
were  euer  taking  exceptions,  both  againft  his 
fayings  &  doings. 

In  the  beginning  of  this  chapter,  they  brought  vnto  him 
a  man  ficke  of  the  palfey,  lying  vpon  a  bedd,  Jefus  feeing 
their  faith,  faid  vnto  him,  fonne  be  of  good  cheare,  thy 
fynnes  be  forgiuen  thee,  the  Scribes  fay  wthin  themfelues 
that  he  blafphemeth,  (Thrift  perceiuing  their  thoughts, 
anfwered  for  himfelfe,  &  telleth  them,  he  cold  as  eafily 

forgiue 


20 


154  Fast-day  Sermon. 

forgiue  fynnes,  as  reftore  this  man  to  health ;  (Thrift  goeth 
from  thence  &  goeth  to  the  receipt  of  cuftome,  &  calleth 
Mathew  the  Publican,  &  he  receaueth  him  into  his  houfe 
&  maketh  a  feaft,  Chrift  fitteth  downe  wth  Publicans  & 
fynners,  the  Pharifees  take  exceptions,  &  tell  his  Difciples, 
that  their  Matter  eateth  wth  Publicans  &  fynners,  &  Chrift 
hearing  of  it,  anfwereth  for  himfelfe  &  telleth  them,  they 
were  fit  fubiedls  to  worke  vpon,  he  iuftifieth  the  vngodly. 
thofe  that  are  iuftified  by  Chrift  muft  not  looke  to  be  faued 
by  facrifice,  but  by  the  mercy  of  Chrift.  A  little  after  the 
Difciples  of  John  were  inftigated  by  the  Scribes  &  Phar¬ 
ifees  Mar:  2.  18,  and  they  put  this  queftion  vnto  him,  Why 
they  &  the  Pharifees  faft  often  ?  and  the  Difciples  of  Chrift 
faft  not  ?  And  Chrift  anfwered  in  my  text.  And  thus  you 
fee  the  coherence  &  dependance  of  thefe  words. 

The  text  confifteth  of  two  argumts,  whereby  Chrift  did 
prooue  &  fliew,  that  is  was  not  for  his  Difciples  to  faft. 
The  firft  is  taken  from  the  remoouall  of  any  iuft  caufe  of 
falling  wch  they  had  for  the  prfent.  The  fecond  argum1  is 
taken  from  a  pofition  or  putting  a  iuft  caufe  of  faft  they 
fhold  haue  hereafter,  and  that  was  the  remooving  Chrift 
from  them. 

I  will  not  ftand  to  fhew  the  difference  of  fafts,  wch  are 
either  conftrayned,  civill,  miraculous,  dayly  or  religious  :  but 
the  faft  here  fpoken  of  in  my  text,  is  of  the  laft  fort,  and 
mourning  is  added  in  my  text,  becaufe  falling  &  mourning 
go  together.  Joel:  2.  and  where  it  is  here  faid,  the  children 
of  the  bridechamber  cannot  faft,  it  is  to  be  vnderftood  an 
impoffibility  of  feafonablenes,  they  cannot  do  it  feafonably. 

The 


155 


Fast-day  Sermon. 

The  text  contayneth  in  it  two  poynts,  but  I  wrap  all  vp 
in  one  poynt  of  Dodfrine,  and  that  is  this.  That  the  only 
caufe  of  the  faffing  of  true  beleeuers  is  the  abfence 
of  Chrift. 

Either  Chrift  he  is  prfent  wth  his  people,  or  els  abfent 
from  his  people ;  if  he  be  prfent  wth  his  people,  then  they 
haue  no  caufe  to  faft :  therefore  it  muft  be  his  abfence  that 
is  the  true  caufe  of  faffing,  when  he  is  taken  away  then 
they  muff  faff  ;  If  we  take  a  view  of  all  the  faffs,  that  haue 
beene  kept  either  in  the  old  or  new-Teftament,  we  fhall 
find  the  faffs  that  haue  beene  kept  by  true  beleeuers,  haue 
had  this  for  the  ground  of  them,  the  abfence  of  the  Lord, 
what  was  the  reafon  why  the  people  of  Ifraell  kept  a  faff, 
Judges  the  20.  &  1  Sam:  7  and  Jehofephat  &  all  Juda 
2  Cron :  20  and  the  people  of  Ifraell  after  they  came  out 
of  captivity,  Nehemiah  9  And  the  church  of  Antioch, 
Adts  13.  and  Paul  &  Barnabas,  A6fs.  14.  was  it  not  becaufe 
they  wanted  the  Lord  to  protedf,  defend,  pardon,  &  affiff  ? 
where  there  is  mencon  made  of  faffing  in  the  Scripture, 
you  fhall  likewife  find  mencon  made  of  turning  vnto  the 
Lord,  and  the  Prophett  Joel  when  he  fpeaketh  of  a  faff,  he 
biddeth  them  turne  to  the  Lord :  whereby  it  is  evident,  that 
the  reafon  why  Gods  people  do  faff,  is  becaufe  there  is  a 
diffance  betweene  them  &  the  Lord. 

Reaf :  1.  The  firff  reafon  is,  when  Jefus  Chrift  is  abound- 
antly  prfent  he  doth  make  a  fupply  of  whatfoeuer  the  chil¬ 
dren  of  God  can  pcure  in  this  extraordinary  way  of  faffing : 
Wee  know  that  vnder  the  captivity  the  people  of  God  they 

faffed 


156  Fast-day  Sermon. 

failed  exceedingly,  they  kept  a  faft  in  the  fourth  moneth 
.5.  7.  10.  and  now  the  Lord  pmifeth  a  reftauration  of  Jeru- 
falem,  that  is  efpecially  accomplifhed  'in  the  kingdome  of 
Chrift,  when  he  fhall  raigne  ouer  his,  and  he  faith,  in  this 
day  he  will  turne  the  faft  of  the  fourth  moneth  .5.  7.  10.  into 
ioyfull  gladnes  &  chearefull  feafts  Zach :  8.  There  is  a 
prophecy  of  a  glorious  Church,  wch  the  Lord  will  haue 
vnder  the  new  teftament,  &  efpecially  when  the  Jewes 
come  to  be  converted  vnto  God,  and  there  is  a  pmife  that 
the  Lord  will  dwell  wth  them,  &  they  fhall  be  his  people  & 
he  will  be  wth  them,  and  the  effedl  of  it  is,  all  teares  fhall  be 
wiped  from  their  eyes :  Reu :  21.4.  and  the  fame  is  pphecied 
in  Ifay  65.  19.  fo  farr  as  Chrift  is  prfent  he  taketh  away  all 
caufe  of  mourning  &  weeping,  and  in  his  pTence  is  fulnes 
of  ioy,  and  at  his  right  hand  there  is  pleafures  for  evermore. 
Ps  :  1 6.  11. 

Reaf:  2.  The  fecond  reafon  is,  becaufe  when  the  Lord 
Jefus  Chrift  cometh  once  to  be  abfent,  then  cometh  in  mat¬ 
ter  of  mourning  &  failing,  all  mifery  followeth  the  abfence 
of  Chrift,  as  you  fee  darknes  followeth  the  abfence  of  the 
funne,  the  Lord  leaueth  Hezekiah  2  Kings.4  20.  12.  13. 
and  then  what  followeth  vpon  it,  he  finneth  exceedingly  in 
fhewing  the  Ambaffadors  the  treafure  in  his  houfe.  The 
Lord  departeth  from  his  Difciples,  &  his  Difciples  leaue 
him  &  forfake  him.  John:  16.  so  when  it  pleafeth  the 
Lord  to  abfent  himfelfe,  then  cometh  in  caufe  of  mourning, 
and  this  hath  beene  the  reafon  that  the  feruants  of  God 
haue  wonderfully  defired  the .  prfence  of  the  Lord.  Mofes 
defired  Gods  pTence,  or  els  never  to  go  vp,  and  fo  Dauid 

Ps : 


Fast-day  Sermon.  157 

Ps:  27.  9.  becaufe  he  knew  very  well,  if  God  were  abfent 
from  him,  then  mifery  wold  follow. 

Vfe  1.  The  firft  vfe  may  ferue  to  teach  vs  a  reafon,  why 
thofe  that  are  the  children  of  God  vpon  their  firft  acquaint¬ 
ance  they  get  wth  the  Lord,  they  are  not  much  addidfed 
vnto  faffing,  the  Lord  doth  not  cary  them  that  way;  the 
time  when  Chriff  was  vpon  the  earth,  he  being  prfent  wth  his 
Difciples,  he  was  euer  &  anon  inftrudfing  of  them,  when 
they  were  in  dobt  of  any  thing  he  telleth  them  ;  and  if  they 
cold  not  anfwere  many  dobts,  then  Chriff  came  &  anfwered 
for  them,  and  if  at  any  tyme  they  were  in  any  danger,  then 
Chriff  comforteth  them,  and  was  euer  &  anon  wth  them. 
And  thus  the  Lord  dealeth  wth  his  children  fpiritually  in 
regard  of  his  fpirituall  prfence,  when  Chriff  firft  cometh  to 
breake  into  the  foules  of  his,  he  is  wonderfully  pleafant 
vnto  them,  and  euer  &  anon  inftrudfing  of  them  &  comfort¬ 
ing  of  them,  yea,  the  Lord  heareth  them  before  they  pray, 
or  when  they  are  a  fpeaking  &  doth  exceedingly  folace 
them ;  but  afterwards  it  may  be  the  faynts  of  God  may 
come  to  be  left  &  forfaken  of  the  Lord,  either  becaufe  the 
children  of  their  mother  is  angry  wth  them,  &  make  them  * 
keepe  the  vyneyard,  thofe  vnder  a  covenant  of  works,  mak- 
eth  them  trauaile  vnder  the  burthen  of  that  Covenant,  and 
fo  maketh  the  Lord  abfent  himfelfe  from  them,  and  then 
Chriff  cometh  to  depart  from  them,  &  then  they  faff;  or, 
els  whileff  they  grow  carnall  &  fall  into  a  fpirituall  fleepe 
Chriff  leaues  them.  Cant:  5.  6. 

2.  Secondly,  from  hence  we  are  taught  how  to  cary  & 
behaue  ourfelues  now  vpon  this  day  of  humiliacon,  there 

are 


158  Fast-day  Sermon. 

are  divers  evills  wch  wee  may  happily  defire  fhold  be  re- 
moued,  both  from  forrayne  Nations  &  from  this  place  where 
we  live,  and  divers  good  things  we  defire  fhold  be  pcured 
both  for  them  &  ourfelues.  What  is  the  courfe  we  muft  take  ? 
muff  we  efpecially  looke  after  the  remouing  thofe  euill  things, 
&  pcuring  thofe  good  things?  this  an  hipocrite  will  do,  fee 
the  example  of  Ahab.  1  Kings  21 :  27.  28.  29.  and  the  Lord 
will  grant  the  defire  of  hipocrites :  in  this  cafe,  fee  78  Pf : 
34.  for  there  the  hipocriticall  people  of  the  Jewes,  in  their 
mifery  fought  the  Lord,  and  the  Lord  being  full  of  compaf- 
fion,  he  forgiueth  their  iniquities  &  deftroyeth  them  not,  in 
the  38  verfe  of  that  pfalme,  muft  we  then  do  as  they  did  ? 
by  no  meanes :  what  muft  we  do  then  ?  we  muft  looke 
firft,  at  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrift,  &  moft  defire  now  that  Jefus 
Chrift  may  be  receaued  in  other  Nations  &  other  places,  and 
may  be  more  receaued  amongft  our  felues,  we  muft  turne 
vnto  the  Lord,  &  then  he  will  turne  all  into  a  right  frame; 
when  many  enimyes  came  againft  Jehofophat,  what  doth 
he  ?  he  goeth  &  feeketh  the  Lord  &  his  eyes  are  towards 
the  Lord.  2  Cron.  20.  12.  fo  the  children  of  God  are  a 
company,  a  generation  that  feeke  the  Lord  &  his  ftrength 
&  face  euermore,  Pf:  105.  4.  they  do  not  only  feeke  the 
gifts  of  his  fpiritt,  but  the  Lord  himfelfe,  they  doe  not  feeke 
after  ftrength  to  be  receiued  from  the  Lord  only,  but  they 
feeke  after  the  ftrength  that  is  in  the  Lord,  they  do  not 
feeke  only  to  know  the  Lord  by  fruits  &  effedls,  but  looke 
vpon  the  Lord  wth  a  direct  eye  of  faith  they  feeke  his  face, 
and  this  is  the  generation  of  feekers  fpoken  of.  Pf:  24.  6. 
therefore  if  we  meane  to  pcure  good  things  &  remooue  euill 

things, 


Fast-day  Sermon.  150 

things,  this  will  be  our  courfe,  feeing  the  abfence  of  the 
Lord  is  the  caufe  of  faffing,  and  the  end  of  our  faffing  muff 
be  our  turning  to  the  Lord,  &  he  will  turne  to  vs,  Joel.  2. 
and  thus  the  Lord  will  turne  all  things  for  the  good  of  his, 
Rom:  8.  32.  if  we  get  the  Lord  Jefus  Chriff,  we  fhall  haue 
all  things. 

3.  Thirdly  from  hence  we  are  taught  a  reafon,  why  thofe 
that  do  not  know  the  Lord  Jefus,  they  are  vfually  giuen 
moff  vnto  faffing,  not  that  I  condemne  faffing  by  any  meanes  ; 
but  this  is  it,  many  tymes  thofe  that  are  the  leaff  acquainted 
wth  the  Lord  Jefus  are  giuen  moff  of  all  to  faffing,  the  Pap- 
iffs  are  giuen  much  to  faffing  &  punifh  themfelues  by  whip¬ 
ping,  and  the  people  in  Captivity  they  weare  not  acquainted 
wth  the  Lord,  &  fo  did  not  faff  to  the  Lord.  Zach:  7.  5.  6.  and 
yet  appoynted  more  faffs  then  the  Lord  appoynted,  the  4.  5.  8. 
10  moneth,  and  the  Pharifees  faffed  twice  a  weeke  Luk.  18. 
12.  they  want  the  Lord  Jefus  Chriff,  &  they  muff  haue  fome- 
thing  to  reft  vpon  &  muff  clofe  wth  fome  thing,  and  be- 
caufe  they  want  Chriff  they  faff.  This  for  the  firff  vfe  of 
inftrucebn. 

Vfe  2.  The  fecond  vfe  is  of  exhortation,  it  ferueth  to  ex¬ 
hort  vs  all  in  the  feare  of  God  to  haue  a  fpeciall  care,  that 
we  part  not  wth  the  Lord  Jefus  Chriff,  if  we  part  wth  Chriff 
we  part  wth  our  lives,  for  Chriff  is  our  life  faith  Paul,  Col:  7.  4, 
the  Lord  Jefus  Chriff  is  not  only  the  author  of  life,  but  is 
the  feat  of  the  life  of  Gods  children,  and  all  their  life  is  de¬ 
rived  from  Chriff,  for  he  is  the  roote,  &  he  convayeth  life  to 
the  branches,  and  thofe  that  are  the  children  of  God,  they  live 
by  the  faith  of  the  fonne  of  God :  Gal :  2.  20.  they  haue  faith  to 

lay 


160  Fast-day  Sermon. 

lay  hold  on  the  fonne  of  God,  and  the  fonne  of  God  convay-^ 
eth  life  vnto  them  ;  therefore  if  we  part  wth  Chrift,  we  part  wth 
our  lives,  therefore  it  ftandeth  vs  all  in  hand,  to  haue  a 
care  Chrift  be  not  taken  from  vs,  if  we  belong  to  the  eleccon 
of  grace,  Chrift  cannot  be  taken  wholy  away  from  vs,  yet  he 
may  be  taken  away  in  fome  degree,  therefore  let  vs  haue  a 
care  to  keepe  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrift. 

Obiedt:  It  maybe  here  demanded,  what  courfe  fhall  we 
take  to  keepe  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrift? 

Anfw :  The  way  we  muft  take,  if  fo  be  we  will  not  haue 
the  Lord  Jefus  Chrift  taken  from  vs,  is  this,  we  muft  all 
prpare  for  a  fpirituall  combate,  we  muft  put  on  the  whole 
armour  of  God,  Ephes  :  6.  [i  i ,]  and  muft  haue  our  loynes  girt 
&  be  redy  to  fight ;  behold  the  bed  that  is  Solomons,  there 
is  threefcore  valient  men  about  it,  valient  men  of  Ifraell, 
euery  one  hath  his  fword  in  his  hand  &  being  expert  in 
warre,  &  hath  his  fword  girt  on  his  thigh,  becaufe  of  feare 
in  the  night,  if  we  will  not  fight  for  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrift, 
Chrift  may  come  to  be  furprifed.  Solomon  lyeth  in  his  bed, 

&  there  is  fuch  men  about  the  bed  of  Solomon,  &  they 
watch  ouer  Solomon  &  will  not  fuffer  Solomon  to  be  taken 
away,  and  who  is  this  Solomon,  but  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrift, 
and  what  is  the  bed,  but  the  Church  of  true  beleeuers,  and 
who  are  thofe  valient  men  of  Ifraell,  but  all  the  children 
of  God,  they  ought  to  fhew  themfelues  valient,  they  fhold 
haue  their  fwords  redy,  they  muft  fight,  &  fight  wth  fpirituall 
weapons,  for  the  weapons  of  our  warfare  are  not  carnall  but 
fpirituall  2  Cor,  10.  4.  &  therefore  wherefoeuer  we  Hue,  if 
we  wold  haue  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrift  to  be  aboundantly 

prfent 


Fast-day  Sermon.  1 6 1 

prfent  wth  vs,  we  muft  all  of  vs  prpare  for  battell  &  coifie  out 
againft  the  enimyes  of  the  Lord,  &  if  we  do  not  ftrive,  thofe 
vnder  a  covenant  of  works  will  prvaile,  Wee  muft  haue  a 
fpeciall  care  therefore  to  fliew  our  felues  couragious,  All 
the  valient  men  of  Dauid  &  all  the  men  of  Ifraell,  Barak 
&  Deborah  &  Jael,  all  muft  out  &  fight  for  Chrift,  curfe  ye 
Meroz,  becaufe  they  came  not  out  to  helpe  the  Lord  ag*  the 
mighty.  Jud:  5.  23.  therefore  if  we  will  keepe  the  Lord  Jefus 
Chrift  and  his  prfence  &  power  amongft  vs,  we  muft  fight. 

That  thefe  things  may  be  the  better  cleared,  we  muft  vn- 
derftand  &  call  to  our  confideracons,  that  as  foone  as  euer 
Chrift  was  borne  into  the  world  Herod  &  all  Jerufalem  was 
trobled  Math :  2.  and  if  the  Lord  had  not  prvented  him, 
he  fought  to  deftroy  him,  &  when  Chrift  Jefus  came  once  to 
fhew  himfelfe  &  to  declare  himfelfe  &  exercife  his  publike 
miniftry,  the  world  fetteth  themfelues  a g*  him  to  intrap  him,  & 
they  labor  to  kill  him,  &  neuer  left  till  they  had  crucified  the 
Lord  of  glory,  for  this  was  done  by  Herod  &  Pontius  Pilate : 
A6ts.  4.  and  when  they  haue  crucified  him,  that  wold 
not  feme  the  turne,  but  he  being  buried,  they  came  &  made 
it  fure  &  fealeth  the  ftone,  &  fetteth  watch  &  ward,  &  wold 
haue  buried  the  Lord  for  euer,  &  wold  haue  kept  him  eter¬ 
nally  in  the  grave ;  but  he  rayfed  himfelfe  by  his  power ;  and 
fince  Chrifts  refurreccon  &  afcenfion  all  the  enimyes  of  the 
Lord  Jefus  Chrift,  they  euermore  do  it  fpiritually,  and  as  * 
the  buried  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrift  &  labored  to  keepe  him 
there,  fo  fpiritually  they  burie  Chrift,  and  they  do  not  only 
labor  to  do  this,  that  are  Pagonifh,  but  the  Antichriftian.  Why 
do  the  heathen  rage  &  the  people  imagine  a  vayne  thing : 

Ps:  2.  1. 


21 


162 


Fast-day  Sermon. 

Ps:  2.  i.  what  people  are  they,  the  people  of  God,  the  people 
of  the  Jewes,  this  people  do  imagine  to  take  away  the  Lord 
Jefus  Christ,  and  what  hath  beene  the  pradtife  of  all  Anti- 
chriftian  fpiritts,  but  only  to  take  away  the  Chrift,  the  sonne 
of  the  living  God,  &  put  in  falfe  Chrifts,  &  to  deceaue 
the  eledt,  if  it  were  poffible,  Math:  24.  24.  for  what  is  Anti- 
chrift,  but  one  being  againft  Chrift,  and  for  Chrift,  his  being 
for  Chrift,  is  being  ag*  Chrift,  becaufe  he  wold  put  one  in  the 
*  roome  of  Chrift :  therefore  if  we  wold  keepe  the  Lord  J  efus 
Chrift  amongft  vs,  we  muft  ftand  vpon  our  gard  &  watch 
ouer  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrift,  as  the  valient  men  of  Ifraell 
watched  ouer  Solomon. 

Obiedt :  It  may  be  demaunded  what  courfe  muft  we  take 
to  prvaile  in  this  combate,  for  fight  we  muft? 

Anfw:  If  we  wold  prvayle  thorough  the  ftrength  of  the 
Lord  (for  of  our  felues  we  can  do  nothing)  then  we  muft 
firft  contend  for  the  faith  once  delifted  to  the  faynts.  Jude. 
3.  that  is  the  Gofpell,  it  was  but  once  delified  for  the  fub- 
ftance,  though  many  tymes  in  regard  of  the  manner,  we 
muft  therefore  ftriue  for  the  faith  of  the  Gofpell,  &  ftriue  to¬ 
gether  for  the  Gofpell :  Phil :  1.  17.  if  that  the  Light  once  be 
taken  away,  &  darknes  come  vpon  the  face  of  the  Church, 
then  we  may  be  eayfily  deluded,  and  a  falfe  Chrift  put  in 
true  Chrifts  roome. 

Obiedt :  It  may  be  demaunded,  what  is  the  Gofpell  ? 

Anfw :  It  is  the  fame  glad  tydings  the  Lord  fent  into  the 
world  of  a  Savior  that  is  borne  vnto  vs,  euen  Jefus  Chrift 
the  Lord,  this  fame  Gofpell  is  that  heauenly  dodtrine,  that 
was  pphecied  of  before  by  the  Prophet  concerning  Jefus 

Chrift 


163 


Fast-day  Sermon. 

Chrift  the  Lorch  to  be  made  of  the  feed  of  Dauid.  The 
Gofpell  is  a  divine  heauenly  fupernaturall  dodlrine,  contayn- 
ing  in  it  the  revelation  of  Jefus  Chrift.  to  preach  the 
Gofpell  is  to  preach  Chrift,  and  the  Apoftle  faith  Gal:  6.  14. 
God  forbidd  that  I  fhold  glory  in  any  thing  but  in  the  croffe 
of  Chrift :  fo  that  the  Gofpell  is  fuch  a  dodlrine  as  doth  hold 
forth  Jefus  Chrift  &  nothing  but  Chrift,  when  fuch  a  doc¬ 
trine  is  holden  forth  as  doth  reveale  Jefus  Chrift  to  be 
our  wifdome,  our  righteoufnes,  our  fandtificacon  &  our  re¬ 
demption  1  Cor.  1.  30.  when  all  is  taken  away  from  the 
creature,  &  all  giuen  to  Chrift,  fo  that  neither  before  our 
converfion  nor  after,  we  are  able  to  put  forth  one  adt  of 
true  faving  fpirituall  wifdome,  but  we  muft  haue  it  put  forth 
from  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrift,  wth  whom  we  are  made  one  ;  and 
fuch  a  dodlrine  holden  forth  as  declares,  that  we  are  not 
able  to  do  any  worke  of  fandlificacfin,  further  then  we  are 
adled  by  the  Lord,  nor  able  to  pcure  our  iuftificacon,  but 
it  muft  be  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrift  that  muft  apply  himfelfe 
&  his  righteoufnes  to  vs ;  and  we  are  not  able  to  redeeme 
our  felues  from  the  leaft  euill,  but  he  is  our  redemption ; 
when  Chrift  is  thus  holden  forth  to  be  all  in  all,  all  in  the 
roote,  all  in  the  branch,  all  in  all,  this  is  the  Gofpell,  this  is 
that  fountayne  open  for  the  inhabitants  of  Juda  &  Jerufalem 
for  fmne  &  for  vncleanenes :  Zach :  13.  1.  and  this  is  the 
well,  of  wch  the  wells  vnder  the  old  Teftament  were  certayne 
types,  this  fame  well  muft  be  kept  open,  if  the  Philiftines  fill 
it  wth  earth,  wth  the  earth  of  their  owne  invencons,  thofe  that 
are  the  feruants  of  Ifaack  true  beleeuers,  the  feruants  of  the 
Lord,  muft  open  the  wells  agayne,  this  is  the  light  that 

holdeth 


164  Fast-day  Sermon. 

holdeth  forth  a  great  light,  that  lighteneth  euery  one,  that 
cometh  into  the  world  Joh:  1.  9.  and  if  we  meane  to  keepe 
Chrift,  we  muft  hold  forth  this  light. 

Obiedt:  It  may  be  demaunded,  is  there  nothing  to  be 
holden  forth  in  poynt  of  iuftificacon,  but  only  the  righteouf- 
nes  of  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrift,  may  there  not  be  a  reuelacon 
of  fome  worke  of  fandtificacon,  &  from  that,  may  not  we 
be  caried  to  Chrift  Jefus,  and  fo  come  to  beleeue  in  the 
Lord  Jefus  Chrift,  muft  Chrift  be  all  in  poynt  of  iuftifi¬ 
cacon  ? 

Anfw:  Truly  both  in  poynt  of  iuftificacon,  &  the  knowl- 
edg  of  this  our  iuftificacon  by  faith,  there  muft  be  noth¬ 
ing  in  the  world  reuealed  but  Chrift  Jefus,  none  other 
dodlrine  vnder  heauen  is  able  to  iuftify  any,  but  merely  the 
revelation  of  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrift,  I  am  not  afhamed  of 
the  Gofpell  faith  Paul,  for  it  is  the  power  of  God  to  fal- 
uacon,  1  Rom:  16.  how?  for  in  it,  the  righteoufnes  of  God 
is  revealed :  fo  it  cold  not  be  a  dodtrine  wth  power  to  convert 
a  foule  if  the  righteoufnes  of  the  Lord  were  not  revealed : 
therefore  when  the  Lord  is  pleafed  to  convert  any  foule 
to  him,  he  revealeth  not  to  him  fome  worke,  &  from  that 
worke,  carieth  him  to  Chrift,  but  there  is  nothing  revealed 
but  Chrift,  when  Chrift  is  lifted  vp,  he  draweth  all  to  him, 
that  belongeth  to  the  eledtion  of  grace ;  if  men  thinke  to  be 
faved,  becaufe  the  fee  fome  worke  of  fan dlific aeon  in  them, 
as  hungring  &  thirfting  &  the  like :  if  they  be  faued,  they 
are  faued  wthout  the  Gofpell.  No,  no,  this  is  a  covenant  of 
works,  for  in  the  covenant  of  grace,  nothing  is  revealed 
but  Chrift  for  our  righteoufnes ;  and  fo  for  the  knowledge  of 


our 


Fast-day  Sermon.  165 

our  iuflificacbn  by  faith,  nothing  is  revealed  to  the  foule  but 
only  Chrift  &  his  righteoufnes  freely  giuen,  it  was  the  very 
grace  of  God  that  appeared,  that  fame  apparition  whereby 
the  foule  cometh  to  know  that  he  is  iuftified,  the  obiedt  of 
it  is  Chrift  freely  giuen,  when  the  louing  kindnes  of  Chrift 
appeared  3  Tit:  5.  not  by  the  works  of  righteoufnes,  they 
are  layd  afide,  and  the  Lord  revealeth  only  to  them  the  right¬ 
eoufnes  of  himfelfe  giuen  freely  to  the  foule ;  if  men  haue 
revealed  to  them  fome  worke  of  righteoufnes  in  them  felues, 
as  loue  to  the  brethren  &  the  like,  &  herevpon  they  come  to 
be  affured  they  are  in  a  good  eftate,  this  is  not  the  affurance 
of  faith,  for  faith  hath  Chrift  revealed  for  the  obiedt,  therefore 
[if]  the  affurance  of  ones  iuftification  be  by  faith  as  a  worke, 
it  is  not  Gofpell. 

Obiedt:  It  may  further  be  demaunded,  muft  not  any  fanc- 
tificacon  by  the  Gofpell  be  preffed  vpon  thofe  that  are  the 
children  of  God,  but  only  as  it  cometh  fro  Jefus  Chrift  the 
roote,  &  as  he  worketh  it  in  thofe,  that  are  true  beleeuers? 

Anfvv:  Not  in  the  Gofpell.  Sandtificacbon  muft  be  preached 
no  other  way,  all  dutyes  of  fandtificacbn  preffed  vpon  the 
children  of  God  muft  be  vrged,  as  wthall  it  be  declared  that 
they  grow  from  the  roote  Chrift  Jefus.  Worke  out  yor  fal- 
uation  wth  feare  &  trembling,  Phil :  2.  12.  it  is  he  that  work¬ 
eth  in  you  both  to  will  &  do  of  his  good  pleafure ;  this  is  the 
covenant  of  grace,  the  Lord  Jefus  will  be  our  fandtificacbn, 
&  worke  fandtificacbn  in  vs  &  for  vs.  A  new  hart  will  I  giue 
you,  &  a  new  fpiritt,  and  they  fhall  walke  in  my  ftatutes  & 
you  fhall  keepe  my  iudgmts  &  do  them.  Ezek:  36.  26.  27. 
I  will  forgiue  yor  finnes,  &  write  my  Law  in  yor  harts  &  in¬ 
ward 


1 66  Fast-day  Sermon. 

ward  parts;  [If  works  be  foe  preffed  as]  if  a  beleeuer  had 
power  in  him  felfe  to  worke,  it  killeth  the  fpirit  of  Gods  chil¬ 
dren,  put  any  worke  of  fandtificacon  in  a  legall  frame  &  it 
killeth  him,  the  Law  killeth,  but  it  is  the  fpiritt  that  quickens, 
that  is  the  Gofpell  in  wch  the  fpiritt  of  God  is  convayed,  when 
God  fpeaketh  he  fpeaketh  the  words  of  eternall  life:  [&  Peter 
fath  to  Ch,  whether  final  we  goe,  for  wth  ye  is  ye  wordes  of 
eternal  life,]  therefore  ought  no  works  of  fandtificacon  to 
be  vrged  vpon  the  feruts  of  God,  fo  as  if  they  had  a  power 
to  do  them,  it  will  kill  the  foule  of  a  man,  &  it  oppreffeth  the 
poore  foules  of  the  faynts  of  God  ;  Chrift  faith,  Math :  1 1.  28, 
come  vnto  mee  all  ye  that  labor  &  are  heauy  laden,  and 
as  long  as  we  are  abfent  from  Chrift  we  are  heauy  laden ;  but 
when  Chrift  pulleth  vs  to  himfelfe  &  takes  our  burthen  vpon 
him,  then  we  find  eafe ;  Learne  of  me  for  I  am  meeke  & 
lowly,  and  you  fliall  find  reft  to  yor  foules,  Chrift  was  fo 
meeke  &  lowly,  as  content  to  receaue  all  from  the  father, 
and  fo  muft  we  be  meeke  &  lowly,  and  content  to  receaue  all 
from  Chrift ;  if  the  dutyes  be  preffed  any  other  way,  they  will 
be  burthens,  that  neither  wee,  nor  our  fathers  were  able  to 
beare ;  therefore  if  we  meane  to  keepe  the  Lord  Jefus 
Chrift,  wee  muft  keepe  open  this  fountayne  &  hold  forth 
this  light,  if  there  [be]  a  night  of  darknes,  the  feare  (faith 
the  Spirit  of  God)  is  in  the  night. 

2.  The  fecond  adtion  we  muft  performe  &  the  fecond  way 
we  muft  take  is,  When  enimyes  to  the  truth  oppofe  the 
wayes  of  God,  we  muft  lay  load  vpon  them,  we  muft  kill 
them  wth  the  word  of  the  Lord,  Hof :  6.  5.  the  Lord  hath 
giuen  true  beleeuers  power  ouer  the  Nations,  &  they  fliall 

t 

breake 


167 


Fast-day  Sermon. 

breake  them  in  peeces  as  fhivered  wth  a  rod  of  yron ;  and 
what  rod  of  yron  is  this,  but  the  word  of  the  Lord,  and 
fuch  honor  haue  all  his  faynts.  Ps:  149.  9.  the  Lord  hath 
made  vs  of  threfhing  inftrumts  wth  teeth  &  we  muft  beate 
the  hills  as  chaffe,  Ifay.  41.  15.  therefore  in  the  feare  of 
God,  handle  the  fword  of  the  fpiritt,  the  word  of  God,  for  it 
is  a  two  edged  fword,  and  Hebr:  4.  12,  this  word  of  God 
cutteth  men  to  the  hart. 

Obiedt :  It  may  be  obiedted  that  there  will  be  little  hope 
of  vidtorie  for  the  feruts  of  God,  becaufe  the  children  of  God 
are  but  few,  and  thofe  that  are  enimyes  to  the  Lord  &  his 
truth  are  many  ? 

Anfw:  True,  I  muft  confeffe  &  acknowledge  the  faynts 
of  God  are  few,  they  are  but  a  little  flocke,  and  thofe  that 
are  enimyes  to  the  Lord,  not  onely  Pagonifh,  but  Antichrif- 
tian,  and  thofe  that  run  vnder  a  covenant  of  works  are  very 
ftrong :  but  be  not  afrayd,  the  battle  is  not  yors  but  Gods, 
Yee  know  the  fpeech  rendred  by  the  Prophet  when  fo  many 
came  againft  Jofua.  Jof:  23.  10.  one  of  you  fhall  chafe  a 
thoufand ;  and  if  we  fhold  go  in  our  owne  ftrength  we 
fhold  be  fwallowed  vp  many  a  time  may  Ifrael  fay,  if  it 
had  not  beene  for  the  Lord,  we  had  beene  fwallowed  vp,  if 
it  were  not  for  the  Lord  of  hoafts,  there  were  little  hope  of 
prvayling  by  the  faynts,  but  out  of  the  mouthes  of  babes  & 
fucklings,  God  ordayneth  him  prayfe,  to  ftill  the  enimyes,  the 
Lord  will  magnifie  his  name  in  the  faynts,  &  though  Gods 
people  be  but  few,  yet  it  is  the  Lord  of  hoafts,  that  God  of 
heauen  &  earth,  that  layed  the  foundacon  vpon  the  feas, 
&  in  comparifon  of  whom,  all  the  Nations  are  nothing, 

Jehouah 


1 68 


Fast-day  Sermon. 

Jehouah  is  his  name  that  great  God,  it  is  Michaell  that 
fighteth  wth  the  Angells ;  therefore  though  the  people  be 
few,  yet  it  is  all  one  for  God  to  faue  wth  many  or  thofe  that 
haue  no  ftrength. 

Obieft :  It  will  be  obiedled,  that  divers  of  thofe  who  are 
opofite  to  the  wayes  of  grace  &  free  coven1  of  grace,  they 
are  wondrous  holy  people,  therefore  it  fhold  feeme  to  be  a 
very  vncharitable  thing  in  the  feruts  of  God  to  condemne 
fuch,  as  if  fo  be  they  were  enimyes  to  the  Lord  &  his 
truth,  whileft  they  are  fo  exceeding  holy  &  ftridt  in  their 
way. 

Anfw :  Brethren,  thofe  vnder  a  covenant  of  works,  [ye] 
more  holy  they  are,  the  greater  enimyes  they  are  to  Chrift, 
Paul  acknowledged!  as  much  in  Gal:  [i]  he  faith  he  was 
zealous  acording  to  the  Law  &  the  more  he  went  in  a  legall 
way,  the  more  he  perfecuted  the  wayes  of  grace  13  Adts.  14. 
50.  where  all  the  devout  people  were  fuch,  as  did  expell 
Paul  out  of  Antioch  &  out  of  all  the  coafts,  It  maketh  no 
matter  how  feemingly  holy  men  be,  according  to  the  Law ; 
if  they  do  not  know  the  worke  of  grace  &  wayes  of  God, 
they  are  fuch  as  truft  to  their  owne  righteoufnes,  they  fhall 
dye  fayth  the  Lord.  Ezek:  33.  13.  what  a  curfed  righteouf¬ 
nes  is  that,  that  thrufteth  out  the  righteoufnes  of  Chrift,  the 
Apoftle  fpeaketh,  they  fhall  transforme  themfelues  into  an 
Angell  of  Light,  2  Cor.  11.  14.  therefore  it  maketh  no  mat¬ 
ter  how  holy  men  be  that  haue  no  acquaintance  wth  Chrift. 
Seeft  thou  a  man  wife  in  his  owne  conceit,  more  hope  their 
is  of  a  foole  then  of  him.  Pro:  26.  12.  we  know  (through 
the  mercy  of  God)  affoone  as  Chrift  cometh  into  the  foule, 

he 


Fast-day  Sermon .  169 

he  maketh  the  creature  nothing:  therefore  if  men  be  fo 
holy  &  fo  ftridt  &  zealous,  &  truft  to  themfelues  &  their 
righteoufnes,  &  knoweth  not  the  wayes  of  grace,  but  oppofe 
free  grace  ;  fuch  as  thefe,  haue  not  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrift, 
therefore  fet  vpon  fuch  wth  the  fword  of  the  Spiritt,  the  word 
of  God. 

Obiedt :  It  will  be  obiedted,  that  the  children  of  God 
fhold  be  a  meeke  generation,  it  is  an  exhortation  the  Apoftle 
giueth.  Jam:  3.  13. 

Anfvv :  ffor  to  fight  couragioufly  &  in  the  caufe  of  God, 
and  to  be  meeke,  they  are  divers,  but  not  oppofits,  they 
may  ftand  very  well  together:  You  know  when  Steven  was 
of  a  meeke  frame,  for  the  Spirit  of  God  was  in  him,  &  he 
was  of  a  calme  quiet  frame  &  difpofition,  and  yet  you  fee 
what  a  vehement  fpeech  Steven  made  to  the  enimyes  of 
God,  Adis.  7.  51.  it  cut  them  to  the  very  hart,  yet  Steven 
a  meeke  man,  he  prayed  for  his  enimyes  in  a  meeke  frame 
of  fpiritt,  &  yet  vehement  to  thofe  that  oppofe  the  wayes 
of  God.  Chrift  was  meeke,  I  am  fure  you  will  fay,  &  he 
faith,  learne  of  mee  for  I  am  meeke  &  lowly,  yet  when  he 
cometh  to  thofe  that  did  oppofe  the  wayes  of  grace,  you 
are  the  children  of  the  divell,  John.  8.  44.  and  in  the  23 
Math:  23.  Woe  be  to  you  Scribes  Pharifees  hipocrites,  a 
vehement  fpeech  he  vfeth,  yet  Chrift  the  meekeffc  man  that 
euer  was,  therefore  you  may  eafily  beate  downe  thofe  holds, 
by  the  fword  of  the  Spiritt,  the  word  of  God. 

Obiedt:  This  will  caufe  a  combuftion  in  the  Church  & 
comon  wealth,  may  be  obiedted. 

Anfvv :  I  muft  confeffe  &  acknowledge  it  will  do  fo,  but 

what 


22 


170  Fast-day  Sermon. 

what  then  ?  did  not  Chrift  come  to  fend  fire  vpon  the  earth, 
Luke  12.  49.  and  what  is  it,  that  it  were  alredy  kindled,  he 
defireth  it  were  kindled,  and  it  is  the  defire  of  the  Spirit 
&  of  the  faynts  that  this  fire  were  kindled  ;  is  not  this  that 
that  is  pphefied  of,  Ifay  9.  5.  This  battle  betweene  Michaell 
&  his  Angells,  the  battle  betweene  Gods  people  &  thofe 
that  are  not,  thofe  battles  of  Chriftians  muff  be  burning, 
and  what  is  it,  but  the  burning  of  the  word  of  God  accom¬ 
panied  by  the  Holy  Ghoft,  this  is  pphefied  of  in  Mai :  4.  1. 
the  day  fhall  come  that  fliall  burne  like  an  oven  &  all  that 
do  wickedly  fliall  be  ftubble,  and  this  is  the  terrible  day  of  the 
Lord,  when  the  gofpell  is  thus  held  forth,  this  is  a  terrible 
day  to  all  thofe  that  do  not  obey  the  Gofpell  of  Chriffc; 
Brethren,  we  know  that  the  whore  muff  be  burnt,  Reu:  18. 

8.  it  is  not  fliaving  of  her  head  &  paring  her  nayles  & 
changing  her  rayment,  that  will  serue  the  turne,  but  this 
whore  muff  be  burnt.  Many  fpeake  of  the  externall  burning 
of  Rome,  but  I  am  fure  there  muff  be  a  Spirituall  burning, 
and.  that  burning  by  the  fire  of  the  Gofpell ;  This  way  muff 
Antichriff  be  confumed.  2  Thef:  2.  why  fliold  we  not 
further  this  fire,  who  knoweth  not  how  foone  thofe  Jewes 
may  be  converted?  Reu:  18  &  19  chap:  after  the  burning 
of  the  whore  followes,  Alleluia,  a  prayfing  of  the  Lord  in 
Hebrew ;  wee  know  not  how  foone  the  conilfion  of  the  Jewes 
may  come,  and  if  they  come,  they  muff  come  by  the  down¬ 
fall  of  Antichriff,  and  if  we  take  him  away,  we  muff  burne 
him  ;  therefore  neuer  feare  combuftions  &  burnings. 

Obiedt :  Laftly  it  may  be  obiedted  againft  thofe  combats 
&  fightings,  if  Miniffcers  &  chriftians  be  fo  downeright  &  lo 

ffrive  . 


Fast-day  Sermon.  I  7  1 

ftrive  &  contend,  &  holde  forth  the  word  of  God  wth  fuch 
violence  &  power,  this  will  be  a  meanes  to  difcourage  thofe 
that  are  weake  Chriftians,  &  do  them  a  great  deale  of 
hurt. 

Anfw:  Let  the  Gofpell  be  neuer  fo  cleerely  held  forth, 
it  neuer  hurteth  the  children  of  God,  no,  it  doth  them  a  great 
deale  of  good,  that  fame  very  fire  of  the  word,  that  burneth 
vp  all  vnbeleeuers,  &  all  vnder  a  Coven*  of  works,  that  Gof¬ 
pell  doth  exceedingly  cleare  Gods  children.  Mai :  4.  2.  then 
the  fonne  of  righteoufnes  fliall  come  wth  healing  in  his  wings, 
and  in  the  3  Math :  Chrift  when  he  handleth  the  Gofpell, 
he  layeth  the  axe  to  the  roote  of  the  tree,  and  what  followeth 
herevpon,  he  will  purge  his  floare,  &  cutteth  downe  all 
hipocrites,  and  thofe  that  build  vpon  any  thing  befids  Chrift, 
and  then  he  will  purge  the  Church,  and  gather  the  wheate 
into  the  garner,  true  beleeuers  will  come  in,  vnbeleeuers  & 
hipocrites  chaffe  will  be  burnt  vp  :  fo  the  fame  Gofpell  that 
is  a  word  of  terror  to  the  wicked  men,  is  a  great  comfort 
to  all  that  beleeue  in  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrift. 

3.  Thirdly,  if  we  meane  to  keepe  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrift, 
we  muft  be  willing  to  fuffer  any  thing,  You  know  in  the  12 
Reu  :  1 1.  the  faynts  of  God  overcame,  and  over  came  by  the 
blood  of  the  Lambe,  that  is  by  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrift,  &  by 
the  word  of  the  teftimony,  that  is  the  Gofpell,  and  they  loued 
not  their  lives  vnto  the  death,  that  is,  if  we  will  overcome 
we  muft  not  loue  our  lives,  but  be  willing  to  be  killed  like 
fheepe ;  it  is  impoffible  to  hold  out  the  truth  of  God  wth 
externall  peace  &  quietnes,  if  we  will  prvaile,  if  we  be  called, 
we  muft  be  willing  to  lay  downe  our  lives,  &  fliall  ouercome 

by 


172  Fast-day  Sermon. 

by  fo  doing ;  Sampfon  flew  more  at  his  death,  then  in  his 
life,  and  fo  we  may  prvaile  more  by  our  deathes,  then  by  our 
lives. 

4.  ffourthly,  if  we  will  keepe  Chrift,  we  muft  confider, 
that  we  cannot  do  any  of  this,  by  any  flrength  that  is  in  our 
felues,  but  we  muft  confider  that  it  is  the  Lord  that  muft 
helpe  vs  &  adt  in  vs,  &  worke  in  vs,  and  the  Lord  muft  do 
all;  When  as  Zerobabell  &  Jofua  &  the  people  came  out  of 
captivity  to  build  the  temple,  they  all  tooke  their  rest,  &  lett 
the  temple  alone,  till  the  Lord  came  &  ftirred  vp  the  spiritt 
of  Zerobabell  &  Jofua  &  the  people,  and  then  they  fall  a 
building :  fo  (brethren)  we  may  thinke  to  do  great  matters, 
and  lye  quietly  &  calmely,  and  let  the  enimyes  of  the  Church 
do  what  they  will,  till  the  Lord  ftirr  vs  vp,  the  Judges 
ftirred  not,  till  the  Spiritt  of  God  came  vpon  them,  and  then 
they  did  wonderfull  things ;  fo  in  fome  meafure,  we  muft 
looke  for  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  to  come  vpon  vs,  and  then 
we  fhall  do  mighty  things  through  the  Lord,  it  is  the  Lord 
himfelfe  that  muft  effedt  &  do  all :  this  for  the  firft  exhorta¬ 
tion,  not  to  fuffer  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrift  to  be  taken  violently 
away  from  vs,  wherefoeuer  we  live,  we  fhall  find  fome  that 
go  vnder  a  covenant  of  works,  and  thefe  are  enimyes  to  Chrift, 
and  the  flefli  will  luft  againft  the  Spiritt.  Gal:  5.  17,  and  fo 
we  fhall  find  it  in  our  fpiritts,  thofe  that  are  after  the  flefli,  do 
mind  the  things  of  the  flefli,  Rom:  8.  5.  therefore  where¬ 
foeuer  we  are,  we  fhall  haue  Chrift  taken  from  vs  by  violence, 
if  the  Lord  be  not  pleafed  to  giue  vs  to  vfe  thefe  meanes. 

The  fecond  vfe  of  exhortacon,  we  that  are  vnder  a  Cove¬ 
nant  of  grace,  let  vs  all  haue  a  care  fo  to  carry  our  felues, 

that 


173 


Fast-day  Sermon. 

that  we  may  haue  the  prfence  of  the  Lord,  that  he  may  not 
depart  from  vs ;  for  if  the  Lord  depart  we  fhall  haue  caufe 
of  mourning  indeede :  That  we  may  carry  &  behaue  our- 
felues,  as  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrift,  who  is  amongft  vs,  that  he 
may  ftill  be  more  &  more  prfent  wth  vs, 

i.  ffirfl  we  muft  haue  a  fpeciall  care,  that  as  any  of  vs  are 
intereffed  wth  the  Gofpell,  fo  to  deale  faithfully  in  the  dif- 
pencing  of  it,  whether  we  be  in  place  or  not  in  place, 
whether  brethren  or  fillers,  being  made  pertakers  of  the 
grace  of  God,  being  made  flewards  wee  are  to  be  found 
faithfull,  [therefore  let  vs  haue  a  caire  to  deale  faithfully,] 
&  to  hold  forth  the  truth  as  it  is  in  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrift, 
&  then  wee  fhall  find  the  Lord  to  be  prfent  wth  vs,  Math : 
28.  20  Behold  I  am  wth  you,  if  you  teach  that,  that  he  hath 
comanded,  he  will  be  wth  them ;  therefore  in  the  feare  of  God 
haue  a  care,  that  we  do  renounce  the  hidden  things  of  dif- 
honeftie,  and  that  we  do  not  vfe  any  deceit;  Let  vs  not 
be  as  fome  that  corrupt  the  word,  but  in  finferity  in  the 
fight  of  God  as  in  Jefus  Chrift,  fo  let  vs  fpeake,  Let  vs 
all  haue  a  care  to  hold  forth  Chrift,  &  not  to  runne  into 
generalityes,  left  Chrift  vanifh  away  in  a  cloud,  while  the 
faynts  of  God  Hand  gazing  &  haue  fad  harts,  when  we  are 
to  hold  forth  any  truth,  let  vs  deale  fathfully  in  this  kind, 
and  the  Lord  will  be  abundantly  prfent,  we  fhall  find  he 
fhall  be  a  Savior  wherefoeuer  he  cometh  either  of  life  or 
death,  and  if  we  be  faithfull  in  few  things,  he  will  make  vs 
rulers  ouer  many.  Math:  25.  therefore  if  we  meane  to  inioy 
the  prfence  of  Chrift,  &  ftill  wold  haue  more  of  the  Lord 
Jefus  Chrift,  &  wold  haue  Chrift  to  come  &  fay,  good  &  faith¬ 
full 


174 


Fast-day  Sermon . 

full  feruant,  &  beftow  more  of  his  prfence  amongft  vs,  let  vs 
be  faithfull  in  difpenfing  any  word  of  truth. 

2.  Secondly  let  vs  haue  a  care  all  of  vs,  that  we  loue  one 
another,  this  is  my  comaundem*  that  you  loue  one  another, 
as  I  haue  loued  you.  i  John.  3.  23.  the  Lord  Chrift  delighteth 
in  a  louing  people,  when  the  faynts  of  God  loue  one  another, 
&  are  willing  to  lay  downe  their  lives  one  for  another,  the 
Lord  delighteth  in  them,  Chrift  was  louing  when  he  was 
vpon  the  earth,  if  the  Difciples  were  in  danger  at  any  tyme, 
he  came  &  fupported  them,  &  helped  them  when  they  were 
poafed  by  the  Scribes  &  Pharifees,  fometyme  he  came  & 
anfwered  for  them.  A6ts.  2.  15.  fome  mocked  at  them,  then 
Peter  fteppeth  vp  and  faith,  thofe  are  not  drunken  as  ye  fup- 
pofe,  he  loued  them  &  anfwered  for  them.  Mofes  feeing  an 
Egiptian  ftriving  wth  his  brother,  he  came  &  killed  him. 
A6ts.  7.  24.  25.  26.  fo  Chrift  putetth  into  his  people  a  louing 
fpiritt ;  therefore  let  vs  haue  a  care,  [y*]  we  do  not  alienate  our 
harts  one  from  another,  becaufe  of  divers  kind  of  expreffions, 
but  let  vs  keepe  the  vnity  of  the  fpiritt  in  the  bond  of  peace, 
let  vs  haue  a  care  to  loue  one  another,  and  then  the  Lord 
Jefus  Chrift  will  be  flill  more  &  more  prfent. 

3.  Thirdly,  let  vs  haue  a  care  that  we  fhew  our  felues  in 
all  manner  of  good  confifation.  1  Pet:  1.  5.  both  in  private 
&  publike  &  in  all  our  cariages  &  conftfations,  let  vs  haue  a 
care  to  be  holy  as  the  Lord  is  holy,  let  vs  not  giue  an  ocafion 
to  thofe  that  are  coming  on,  or  manifeftly  oppofite  to  the 
wayes  of  grace,  to  fufpeft  the  way  of  grace,  let  vs  cary  our 
felues,  that  they  may  be  afhamed  to  blame  vs,  let  vs  deale 
vp  rightly  wth  thofe,  whom  we  haue  occafion  to  deale,  and 

haue 


i75 


Fast-day  Sermon. 

haue  a  care  to  guide  our  familyes,  &  to  performe  duties  that 
belong  to  vs,  and  let  vs  haue  a  care  that  we  giue  not  ocafion 
to  others  to  fay  we  are  libertines  or  Antinomians,  but  Chrif- 
tians,  let  vs  expreffe  the  vertue  of  him  that  hath  called  vs,  and 
then  he  will  manifefl  his  prfence  amongft  vs.  John:  14.  if  you 
loue  me  I  will  manifeft  myfelfe  to  you,  he  will  crovne  his 
owne  worke  wth  his  prfence,  he  will  come  into  his  garden  & 
eate  of  the  pleafant  fruits  ;  therefore  let  vs  carry  our  felues, 
fo  that  we  may  haue  no  caufe  of  mourning,  for  if  the  Lord 
be  abfent,  there  is  caufe  of  mourning. 

The  third  vfe  is  for  reproof e.  And  firft  it  ferueth  to 
condemne  all  fuch  as  in  their  fadings  &  dayes  of  humili- 
acon,  do  principally  &  aboue  all  feeke  for  bleffings  to  be 
<pcured  &  euills  remooued,  and  this  is  that,  they  are  firft 
carryed  vnto,  this  is  not  the  mayne  matter,  the  mayne  matter 
is  the  abfence  of  the  Lord ;  therefore  if  wee  will  do  as  we 
ought  to  do,  and  performe  this  duty  a  right  way;  We  muft 
firft  of  all  be  carryed  vnto  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrift :  they 
may  pcure  great  bleffeings  from  the  Lord,  &  yet  the  Lord 
never  accept  of  them,  they  may  pray  to  the  Lord  &  faft  & 
humble  themfelues,  and  the  Lord  may  heare  them  &  pardon 
them,  &  turne  away  his  wrath  ;  and  yet  for  all  that,  never  faue 
them ;  how  did  the  Lord  cary  himfelfe  towards  the  people 
of  the  Jewes,  you  know  the  Lord  gaue  them  his  prfence  in  the 
wildernes,  &  gaue  them  an  extraordinary  figne  of  his  prfence, 
they  had  a  pillor  of  fire  by  night  &  a  cloud  by  day,  and  the 
Lord  did  caufe  the  Angell  of  his  prfence  to  go  before  them. 
9  Neh :  12.  and  gaue  them  his  good  fpiritt  to  inftrudl  them. 
Ifay  63.  and  yet  for  all  that,  the  body  of. them  were  hipocrites, 
and  the  Lord  fware  in  his  wrath,  that  they  fhold  never  enter 

into 


176  Fast-day  Sermon. 

into  his  reft,  what  is  the  matter,  they  <pcure  vnto  themfelues 
things  from  God  &  the  bleffing  of  God ;  but  they  did  not 
get  the  Lord  himfelfe,  they  had  the  Angell  of  Gods  prfence 
to  go  before  them,  but  they  had  not  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrift 
in  them,  they  had  the  fpiritt  to  inftrudt  them,  but  they  had 
not  the  fpirit  to  dwell  in  them,  they  <pcure  bleffmgs  to  them¬ 
felues  from  the  Lord,  but  they  neuer  got  the  Lord  of  bleffe- 
ings:  therefore  all  thofe  that  turne  vnto  thefe  bleffmgs  in 
the  firft  place,  and  do  not  firffc  of  all  turne  to  the  Lord,  will 
neuer  be  made  pertakers  of  the  Lord. 

2.  The  fecond  fort  that  are  to  be  condemned,  are  all  fuch 
as  do  fett  themfelues  againft  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrift,  fuch  are 
the  greateft  enimyes  to  the  date  that  can  be,  if  they  can 
haue  there  wills,  you  fhall  fee  what  a  lamentable  eftate  both 
the  Church  &  comon  wealth  will  be  in,  then  we  haue  neede 
of  mourning,  the  Lord  he  cannot  endure  thofe  that  are  eni¬ 
myes  to  himfelfe  &  people  &  vnto  the  good  of  his  Church, 
fuch  fhall  neuer  be  able  to  prvaile  againft  the  Lord  :  What 
will  be  the  end  &  iffue  do  you  thinke,  if  people  to  fet  them 
felues  againft  the  wayes  of  grace  &  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrift? 
this  will  be  the  iffue  of  it,  thofe  that  oppofe  the  wayes  of 
grace  &  refift  the  truth,  they  fhall  wax  worfe  &  worfe.  2  Tim : 
3.  &  they  may  happily  pceede  a  great  way,  but  the  tyme  will 
come  that  they  fhall  go  no  further,  and  by  reafon  of 
agitation  of  things  it  will  come  to  paffe,  that  the  truth  will 
be  cleared  &  their  folly  will  be  manifefted  to  all  men,  fo 
faith  the  Apoftle,  it  is  hard  to  kicke  againft  the  pricks. 
ACL  9.  5.  whofoeuer  ftriveth  againft  the  Lord  cannot  prof- 
per ;  if  men  or  women  fall  vpon  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrift  they 
breake,  but  if  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrift  do  fall  vpon  them,  he 

will 


1 77 


Fast-day  Sermon. 

will  breake  them  all  to  powder,  if  any  fall  vpon  Chrift  &  they 
will  not  let  Chrift  alone  but  fall  vpon  them  wch  hold  him 
forth,  &  will  abufe  them,  and  be  buffeting  the  Lord  Jefus 
Chrift,  there  is  neuer  a  ftroke  they  giue,  but  maketh  wounds 
in  their  confciences,  but  if  they  will  be  heaving  out  Chrift, 
they  fhall  find  it  the  heavieft  ftone  that  euer  was,  it  will  fall 
&  breake  them  all  to  powder ;  if  people  fet  themfelues  againft 
the  Lord,  &  the  wayes  of  grace  &  his  truth,  this  will  be  the 
iffue  of  it  on  their  part,  either  thofe  that  fet  themfelues 
againft  the  wayes  of  God,  they  will  be  put  to  filence  by  the 
light  that  cometh  from  Chrift,  that  they  will  be  fo  convinced, 
that  they  fhall  not  be  able  to  fpeake  any  more  in  their  caufe, 
as  Chrift  put  downe  thofe  that  came  againft  him,  that  they 
durft  afke  him  no  more  queftions,  &  there  cometh  fuch  a 
power  from  the  word  held  forth  by  the  faynts  of  God,  that 
it  [will]  ftrike  a  feare  into  their  harts  that  oppofe  it.  What 
ayleft  thou  O  Jordan  that  the  floods  go  backe,  tremble  thou 
earth  at  the  prfence  of  the  Lord,  they  that  came  to  take  Chrift 
they  fell  backe,  there  cometh  a  divine  power  from  the  Lord 
&  turneth  them  all  backe,  the  Lord  will  ftrike  wth  trembling 
thofe  that  come  againft  Jerufalem,  or  if  they  be  not  put  to 
filence,  it  will  come  to  paffe  in  tyme,  they  will  fall  into  won- 
derfull  ftrong  pafftons  &  will  quarrell  wth  the  faynts  of  God ; 
it  was  the  cafe  of  Zedekiah  -&  Michaih,  the  queftion  was 
whether  of  them  had  the  fpiritt  of  God,  he  came  &  fmote 
the  Prophet  of  God  vpon  the  cheeke,  but  Gods  fpirit  is  no  fmit- 
ing  fpirit :  Steven  convinced  the  Jewes,  &  did  by  the  power  of 
the  Holy  Ghoft,  evidence  his  caufe  to  be  the  caufe  of  God, 
and  they  were  not  able  to  refill  the  fpirit  by  wch  he  fpake, 
&  they  all  came  &  run  vpon  him,  Why  do  you  refill  the 

Holy 


23 


178  Fast-day  Sermon. 

Holy  Ghoft?  what  maketh  the  fmne  againft  the  Holy  Ghoft, 
but  inlightening,  &  fetting  themfelues  againft  the  wayes  of 
truth  &  perfecuting  it  in  malice  &  wrath :  it  is  a  feareful 
thing  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  the  living  God.  Hebr  :  10. 
for  our  God  is  a  confuming  fire,  Heb:  12.  29.  let  euery  one 
(in  the  feare  of  God)  haue  a  care,  how  they  fet  themfelues 
againft  the  truth  &  wayes  of  God,  and  the  wayes  of  Jefus 
Chrift,  for  we  muft  all  apeare  before  the  J  udgment  feat  of 
Chrift.  2  Cor.  5.  10. 

The  laft  vfe  fhall  be  for  confolacon,  (howfoeuer  this  be  a 
day  of  humiliacon  yet  the  apprehenfion  of  Gods  grace  & 
mercy  &  goodnes,  it  worketh  the  kindliest  humiliacon,  finnes 
are  to  be  confidered  &  looked  vpon,  but  finnes  againft  the 
God  of  grace,  may  melt  one :  In  that  day  I  will  power  vpon 
them  the  fpiritt  of  grace,  and  they  fhall  mourne,  Zach :  12. 
10.  therefore  the  laft  vfe  fhall  be  for  confolacon,)  and  it  may 
feme  to  comfort  the  children  of  God  wch  do  hold  forth  the 
Lord  Jefus  Chrift  &  do  difire  that  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrift 
may  be  receiued  into  Churches,  into  families,  into  the  harts 
of  the  people  of  God.  (Brethren)  thofe  that  walke  this  way 
are  the  greateft  freinds  vnto  the  Church  &  comon  wealth, 
they  intend  &  labor  &  indeauor  to  bring  [in]  the  Lord 
Jefus  Chrift,  and  if  Chrift  be  prfent,  there  will  be  no  caufe 
of  faffing  &  mourning :  therefore  let  me  (in  the  name  of 
God)  incourage  all  thofe  that  hold  forth  the  wayes  of  grace, 
and  do  indeauour  to  make  knowne  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrift. 
(Brethren  &  Sifters)  endeauour  to  bring  Chrift  into  the  harts 
of  people,  and  then  you  fhall  make  the  Church  happie,  & 
yoTelues  happy,  lift  vp  yor  heads  O  ye  gates  &c  Pf:  24. 
7.  bring  the  Lord  Jefus  not  only  into  thy  houfe,  but  into 

.  thy 


179 


Fast-day  Sermon. 

thy  chamber  of  him  that  did  beget  you,  endeauor  it,  for  this 
is  Gods  way,  &  it  is  a  way  to  bring  peace  &  happines  both 
to  Church  &  Comon  wealth. 

Secondly,  it  may  comfort  the  faynts  of  God  in  this  refpect, 
that  feeing  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrift  his  abfence  is  the  caufe  of 
faffing  &  mourning,  this  is  a  comfort  to  the  children  of  God, 
that  come  what  will  come  they  lhall  be  in  a  happy  effate, 
they  fliall  be  bleffed :  fuppofe  thole  that  are  Gods  children 
fhold  loofe  their  houfes  &  lands  &  wives  &  freinds,  &  loofe 
the  adfing  of  the  guifts  of  grace,  &  loofe  the  ordinances,  yet 
they  can  never  loofe  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrift,  this  is  a  great 
comfort  to  Gods  people :  fuppofe  the  faynts  of  God  fhold 
be  banifhed  &  depriued  of  all  the  ordinances  of  God,  that 
were  a  hard  cafe  (in  fome  refpedf)  for  we  had  better  part 
wth  all,  then  the  ordinances  ;  but  if  the  ordinances  fhold  be 
taken  away,  yet  Chrift  cannot:  for  if  John  be  banifhed  into 
an  Hand :  Reu :  1.9.  10,  &  the  fpiritt  come  vpon  him  on  the 
Lords  day,  there  is  amends  for  the  ordinances,  amends  for 
banifhment,  if  we  loofe  the  ordinanfes  for  God,  he  will  be 
ordinances  vnto  vs  :  therefore  let  the  faynts  of  God  be  incour- 
aged  though  they  fhold  loofe  all  they  haue,  yet  they  being 
made  one  in  Chrift,  and  Chrift  dweling  in  their  harts  by  faith, 
they  may  be  pfwaded  nothing  can  feperate  them  from  Chrift : 
Rom :  8.  38.  39.  therefore  let  the  faynts  of  God  reioyce,  that 
they  haue  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrift,  &  their  names  written  in 
the  booke  of  life,  be  glad  &  reioyce,  for  great  is  yor  reward 
in  heauen. 

Note.  The  words  enclofed  in  brackets  in  the  foregoing  difcourfe  have 
been  fupplied  to  complete  the  fenfe,  moftly  from  the  early  MS.  copy  in  the 
poffeffion  of  the  Maffachufetts  Hiftorical  Society,  as  printed  in  their  “  Proceed¬ 
ings,”  in  1866. 


■ 


' 

. 

•- 


:  •  M 

- 

' 


' 


. 


Mercurius  Americanus , 

Mr.  Welds  his  Antitype, 

OR, 

MASSACHUSETTS 

great  Apologie  examined, 

Being  Observations  upon  a  Paper  ftyled, 

A  fhortftoryof  the  Rife,  Reign,  and  Ruine 

of  the  Familijis ,  Libertines ,  &c.  which  infefled  the 

Churches  of  NE  W-  E  NG  L  A  ND ,  &c. 

Wherein  fome  parties  therein  concerned  are  vindicated,  and 

the  truth  generally  cleared. 


By  John  Wheelwright  junior. 

< }n\aXr)6e ?. 


n 


L  ON  DON: 

Printed,  and  are  to  be  fold  at  the  Bull  near  the  Caftle- 
Tavern  in  Cornhill.  1645. 


TO  HIS  HONOURED  FRIEND 
Captain  Thomas  Kingerbie. 


Sir, 

HIS  Paper  feems  to  challenge  your  Acceptance 
under  a  twofold  reafon,  as  it  endeavours  to  ref- 
cue  your  Friend,  and  as  it  propounds  a  Super- 
fedeas  for  your  Tribe ;  in  all  times  it  is  beffc  to 
dedicate  to  a  Friend,  in  thefe  times  to  a  Soul- 
dier ,  in  you  I  find  a  concurrence  of  both  :  if  I  look  upon 
you  as  a  Friend ,  you  have  an  Antitype ;  if  as  a  Souldier,  a 
Mercurie:  If  you  think  it  not  worthy  to  be  admitted  in 
the  former  way,  let  it  be  in  the  latter,  and  receive  it  as  your 
Scout:  If  you  pleafe  to  own  it,  in  either  fenfe,  or  in  any 
fenfe,  you  reach  the  expectation,  and  defire  of  your 

obliged  Kinfman , 


/.  W. 


.  # 


V. 


TO  THE  READER- 


HERE  is  a  paper  lately  printed,  intituled ,  The 
Rife,  Reign,  and  Ruine,  &c.  upon  which  I  had 
(in  regard  of  the  importunity  of  fome  friends , 
together  with  the  expectation  of  many  others , 
looking  at  the  tafk  as  almofl  neceffarily  impofed 
tip  on  me)  prefumed  to  obferve ,  and  indeed  I  pro  traded  not 
for  want  of  time ;  but  in  hope  fome  of  the  family,  or  at 
leafl,  through  their  diredion,  fome  of  their  friends,  would 
have  applyed  themf elves  to  it,  which  wher  I  fee  not,  I  refolved 
upon  it  (as  upon )  (in  regard  of  the  premiff es)  an  Indifpenfa- 
ble  Ad,  not  out  of  any  affedion  to  be  feen  in  Prmt,  but  out 
of  a  pitie,  which  I  had  on  Innocence,  (unleffe  by  this  means ) 
remedilefly  to  be  oppreffed  under  Infolence  and  Malice,  as. 
appears  in  the  forenamed  difcourfe. 

Where  we  meet  firfl  with  fome  Apologeticall  paffages,  one 
of  which,  is  the  perfeding  of  a  book  lately  come  forth  out 
of  the  Preffe,  to  which,  he  saith,  he  was  preffed  by  divers 
wherein  perhaps  he  intends,  to  be  Rhetoricall,  but  what  is 

the . 


* 


24 


1 86 


To  the  Reader. 


the  Refult  of  this  prefjing ,  to  extract  ( forfooth )  the  quintef- 
fence  and  fpirits  of  the  Author:  in  what ?  In  perfecting 
the  Hi/lory  ;  which  terme  perhaps  he  ufeth  fecretly  to  exccufe 
the  Incomp leatneffe  of  his  Notions  for  thofe  things  which 
are  perfellive ,  of  another  efpecially  per  modum  formae  fuper- 
venientis  materiae,  ( Such  as  his  are  pretended)  ufe  to  be  In¬ 
comp  teat :  But  what  perfection  doth  he  intend?  what  degree 
of  aclus  perfectivi  will  this  man  give ,  fuch  as  the  firft  All 
gives  l  No,  thats  being,  or  entity  meerly,  which  it  feems  it 
had  before,  or  fuch  as  the  fecond  All  adds,  thats  a  form , 
formality,  this  furely  he  would  conferre,  which  he  hath  done 
poorly,  as  appears  ;  or  will  he  go  higher,  and  beftow  the  per¬ 
fection  of  the  third  A  Cl  tip  on  the  fecond  exiftence  ;  and 
draw  it  extra  caufas,  that  he  hath  done,  Extra  Ideales  ac  pri- 
mordiales  in  fome  places,  but  by  this  means  he  hath  brought 
it  within  the  compaffe,  of  hie  &  nunc,  which  I  am  glad  of, 
that  I  may  Anfwer  it:  But  how  will  he  perfeCl  it?  He 
tels  us  how,  by  laying  down  the  fenfe  and  order  of  the  ftory : 
What  have  we  here  ?  a  mythologie  ?  Reall  Hifiories  ufe 
to  carry  their  own  fence,  matters  of  fall  need  no  comment, 
fictions  have  their  fenfes,  Fables  their  Morals.  Did  his  zeal 
of  fending  one  mite  towards  the  profiration  of  thefe  Opin- 
ionifis  pitch  his  thoughts,  impatient  of  fiory,  and  examining 
the  matter  upon  gloffe  and  inveClive  ?  or  fhall  we  confirue  it 
as  a  faiall  dafh  of  his  pen,  p radically  pointing  out  to  us  the 
*  fequell  ?  Or  did  the  man  lay  down  his  own  fenfe,  when  he 
refolved  to  lay  down  the  fenfe  of  the  fiory  ?  Order,  perhaps 
the  other  ufed  Syntheticall,  and  began  with  Mrs.  Hutchinfon 
whom  he  cals  the  head  of  the  fadtion,  this  man  will  life  Ana¬ 
lytical! 


To  the  Reader. 


187 


lyticall  and  conclude  with  her ;  the  firjl  its  likely  was  fome 
Jimple  Theorift,  this  an  Adlor  in  the  bufineffe ,  I  warra7it 
you,  let  him  be  what  he  will,  he  would  fee7n  a  good  Methodift, 
710 1  in  martiall  affairs  though,  for  he  fets  Mrs .  Hutch- 
infon  whom  he  cals,  as  before,  the  Captain  #  m  the  rear,  #  2 
which  feems  to  be  a7i  error  unleffe  as  afraid  of  a  combat 
he  would  put  his  book  hi  to  a  poflure  of  retreat,  which  it  7nay 
be  he  intends,  and  fo  I  will  follow  hhn.  Here  is  much  pretence 
of  conformity  to  heavens  proceedings,  whilefl  he  faith,  What 
God  hath  pardoned  in  heaven  he  would  not  renew  on  earth : 
But  he  would  be  excufed  this  correfpondence  three  wayes.  Firft, 
by  declaring  this  was  in  print  before  he  7nedled  with  it.  But 
obferve  Reader,  he  is  guilty  of  the  Order  and  fenfe  of  it.  Sec - 
07idly,  by  faying  Gods  great  works  mu  ft  be  made  known  :  it 
fee7ns  his  works  mediately  by  them  are  greater  than  his  imme¬ 
diate  a  As.  Thirdly,  by  that  ordinary  prete7ice  the  necefjfity 

of  State,  the  times  call  for  his  writing,  he  faith  ;  he  would  be 
thought  a7i  Oracle  of  Imperiall  depths ;  A  conffder able  pert- 
man,  upon  whom  States  depe7id,  and  whofe  writings  the 
exigences  of  Kingdoms  expedi.  Upon  which  fuppofition  I 
wonder  he  took  no  7nore  pains,  for  he  would  7nake  us  beleeve, 
he  wa7ited  time,  which  I  cannot  think,  unleffe  by  his  expref 
Jion  a  {trait  of  time,  he  mea7i  in  allufion  to  ftraits  of  land,  a 
part  of  time  intercepted  twixt  two  other  parts,  which  might 
fo  be  a  yeer,< and  is  mofi  likely :  Or  unleffe  he  mean  in  regard 
of  the  pretended  feafonableneffe  of  his  difcourfe,  top  yaipov, 
the  opportunity  of  time ;  or  unleffe  that  the  matter  of  his 
book  were  fo  blameleffe  as  that  in  charity,  we  might  conceive 
he  did  intueri  verbum  when  he  writ  it,  a7id  fo  was  in  a 

higher 


1 88 


To  the  Reader . 


higher  meafure  of  his  A  dtion  then  time .  But  whatfoever 
may  be  allowed  him  in  patria,  if  that  will  not  be  granted 
him  in  via,  if  he  did  make  ufe  of  time ,  I  am  fure  he  had  a 
competencie  of  it  at  the  leaf ,  for  though  he  be  (/  will  not 
detract)  one  of  the  higher  fphaeres,  yet  (in  which  he  is  higher 
too )  in  his  difcourfes ,  efpecially  polemick ,  he  ajfedls  the  pace 
of  Saturne,  under  zvhofe planetary  houre  he  was  born  ;  but 
if  this  content  him  not ,  but  he  will  (that  he  may  hurry  all 
after  his  opinion )  needs  be  filed  primum  mobile,  let  him  be 
and  I  in  refpedt  of  and  reverence  to  his  grave ,  and 
regular  motion  will  be  circumvolved  a  little  with  him ,  onely  he 
mufl  give  me  leave  in  the  nature  of  an  Orbe  as  well  as  he, 
though  a  lower  one ,  to  have  a  proper  motion  of  mine  own , 
wherein  though  I  thwart  him ,  /  may  perform  my  own  courfe 
by  which  I  hope  to  have  fome  influence  tip  on  thee  unprejudiced 
&  qualified  Reader ;  which  obtained  makes  the  period,  and 
revolution  of  thy  Mercurie, 

John  Wheelwright. 


LTHOUGH  my  Intentions  be  to  apply  my 
thoughts  to  thofe  things  which  do  exprefly 
concern  Mr.  Wheelwright ,  yet  feeing  I  have 
undertaken  to  vindicate  him,  I  muft  likewife 
ingage  myfelf  in  thofe  things  which  are  of 
remoter  and  more  implicite  concernment ;  wherein  he 
is  by  way  of  involution,  and  as  the  conflruction  of  peo¬ 
ple  ignorant  of  matters  may  proceed  after  a  more  eminent 
way  difgraced,  viz.  in  his  being  put  promifcuoufly  amongft 
thofe  whom  they  call  Antinomians,  Libertines,  &c.  and 
being  equally  intituled  to  the  erronious  pofitions  fubfe- 
quent :  a  groffe  abufe,  not  onely  to  him,  but  to  fome 
others  who  are  brought  upon  the  ftage  #  that  they  fhould  #  3 
be  thus  indifcriminately  charged  as  they  are  in  his  Pref¬ 
ace,  which  begins  thus.  A fter  we  had  efcaped  the  hands  of 
the  p  erf ecuting  Prelates ,  &c.  Yes,  then  you  began  to  be  pre- 
laticali  your  felves,  elfe  why  did  not  you  admit  thofe  men, 
who  left  Bifhops  as  well  as  ye,  to  a  freedome  of  fpirit,  and 
confcience  which  they  came  for?  or  at  the  leaft,  why  did 

you 


190 


Mercurius  Americanus. 


you  not  protract  their  cenfures,  and  give  them  leave  to 
recover,  and  recoiled!  themfelves  after  they  were  out  of  the 
hands  of  thofe  Prelates?  you  might  have  confiderd,  that  it 
was  their  good  opinion  of  you,  and  the  reformation  amongft 
you,  which  fcrued  their  meditations  in  way  of  preparation 
for  your  fociety,  to  a  fublimation  in  dodlrine,  as  well  as  dis¬ 
cipline  ;  and  there  might  be  fome  difpofitions  to  errours  at 
the  firft,  which  would  never  have  advanced  fo  much,  had 
not  the  Antiperijlajis  of  your  vehement  profecution  forced 
them  into  a  habit ;  you  might  have  been  pleafed  to  have 
looked  at  them  as  men  tranfported,  through  -  the  fancie  of 
pradlicall  liberty  to  be  injoyed,  into  fome  doctrines  of  Liber- 
tinifme,  and  fo  have  allowed  fomething  to  imagination  :  which 
is  the  main,  you  might  have  reviewed  your  former  condition, 
wherein  (as  you  fay  your  felves)  you  were  expofed  to  the 
malice  of  your  Diocefans ;  divers  waies,  me  thinks,  there 
are  whereby  you  might  have  taken  up  your  felves  in  more 
moderate  deportment  towards  your  brethren,  then  in  fining, 
confining,  imprifoning,  disfranchizing,  banifhing,  and  as 
much  as  in  you  lay,  killing. 

The  infection  which  the  Churches  caught  by  thefe  errors, 
fwels  into  three  heads,  How  they  have  prevailed,  how  they 
reigned,  and  how  they  were  ruined.  Here  is  their  'irpodygr)  d/cp,r), 
and  7rapdfCfA7),  and  here  I  muffc  needs  profecute  that  which 
I  before  named,  viz.  the  unequall,  (and  yet  too  equall)  im¬ 
plication  of  fome  parties,  hereafter  named  in  the  errors,  all’ 
which  to  my  certain  knowledge,  and,  I  beleeve,  to  fome  of 
theirs,  even  to  the  Author  of  the  book,  are  difavowed  by 
fome  of  thefe  fuppofed  Libertines,  by  name,  (for  feeing 

thefe 


Mercurius  Americanus .  igi 

thefe  tenents  were  attributed  to  all,  yet  not  univocally  but' 
Analogically ,  I  muft  apply  my  felf  ad  principale  Analoga- 
tum)  Mr.  Wheelwright  who  hath  openly  protefted  againft 
them,  witneffe  Mount  Wollajlon ,  where  they  know,  and  our 
Author  tels  us,  that  one  of  his  own  Scholars  told  him,  He  fet 
tip  Antic  hr ijl  becaufe  he  did  not  comp  lie  with  him  ;  a  heavie 
charge,  which  furely  he  would  never  have  put  upon  Mr. 
Wheelwright ,  to  whofe  Dodlrine  he  ever  before  affented,  had 
there  been  fo  neer  an  agreement  twixt  them  as  this  per- 
fedter  tels  us,  whofe  words  are  thefe,  after  he  had  named 
the  opinions  of  this  Scholar  of  his  as  he  cals  him :  Now 
(faith  he)  thefe  things  were  fo  grosse  that  M.  Wheelwright 
could  not  but  contradict  them ,  yet  fo  tenderly  as  fhewed  a  neer 
agreement  with  him  in  thefe  points .  And  faith  moreover, 
that  they  are  neceffarie  confequences  which  he  gathered  from 
his  doCtrine .  Where  there  are  divers  indignities  put  upon 
Mr.  Wheelwright.  Firft,  that  he  fhould  have  unfound  prin¬ 
ciples.  And  fecondly,  not  know  their  confedtaries 
*  as  well  as  an  illiterate  man ;  I  can  fcarce  forbear  to  #  4 
break  my  order,  and  fall  upon  him  now,  but  I  fhall 
come  at  length  more  fitly  to  it,  and  fhall  trie  how  well  our 
Author  is  fkilled  in  confequences :  in  the  mean  time,  I  ufe 
this  now  to  let  the  Reader  fee  the  injuftice  of  this  Medley 
of  his ;  if  the  heat  which  infpires  his  paper,  were  true  zeal, 
it  would  Congregare  homogenea  &  fegregare  heterogenea. 

There  are  others  too  as  well  as  Mr.  Wheelwright ,  who 
are  not  affedfed  with  thefe  paradoxes,  as  Captain  Underhill 
a  gentleman,  who  did  good  fervice  againft  the  Pequits ,  as 
it  is  well  known  in  New-England ,  which  their  Emiffary 

might 


192 


Mercurius  Americanus. 


might  have  requited  better  then  to  have  muttered  him 
among  a  troop  of  Enthujiafts  under  Mrs.  Hutchinfon  their 
Captain  as  he  cals  her.  Admit  he  erred,  yet  fliall  every 
little  errour  touching  Divinity  in  militarie  men,  whofe 
ftirred  humours  may  eafily  attenuate  the  fpirits,  when  they 
fo  apply  themfelves,  and  refine  them  into  a  nicety ,  be 
heighten’d  into  herefie,  and  prefently  feen  in  print?  He 
urged  the  libertie  allowed  to  Souldiers,  indanced  in  the  free- 
dome  of  fpeech  he  had  to  Count  Naffau :  But  my  Authors 
reafon  for  fetting  out  his  book  was  pretended  for  his  cen- 
fure,  viz .  the  neceffity  of  State,  and  fo  the  Captain  was 
degraded. 

Another  mentioned  in  his  Catalogue  is  Mr.  Edward 
Hutchinfon;  I  wonder  that  he  is  amongd  the  crowde, 
when  as  he  did  not  ufe  to  be  factious  or  opinionate :  indeed 
the  genius  of  that  family  hath  not  much  inclined  to  fubtil- 
ties,  fcarce  any  of  the  Hutchinfons  have  been  Sectaries, 
unleffe  a  latere ,  and  indiredly,  by  reafon  of  which,  me 
thinks,  he  might  have  been  placed  (if  it  mud  needs  be) 
more  obliquely  in  this  predicament  of  Familifme ,  &c.  then 
he  is.  This  man  faid  in  the  Court  (which  through  Chrif- 
tian  libertie  he  thought  he  might  very  well  fay)  that  if  the 
Court  took  away  his  means,  he  fliould  not  be  able  to  main¬ 
tain  his  wife  and  children.  Now  the  Court  when  they  pro¬ 
pounded  his  Fine,  might  think,  (fuppofmg  him  to  be  En- 
thufiajiique )  that  he  would  not  have  looked  at  means  as 
neceffarie,  but  rather  in  a  holy  triumph  have  prodituted  all, 
and  expeCted  immediate  induence :  in  which  he  deceivedN 
the  awfull  and  ferious  expectation  of  the  Court,  which  ac- 


Mercurius  Americanus. 


193 


ceffary  contempt  committed  him,  and  re-inforced  his  pre¬ 
pared  cenfures ;  which  might  be  haftened  the  rather  by  this 
reafon  too,  the  Governor  comparing  the  intended  Fine  with 
his  eftate,  might  fee  difproportion,  which  he  thought  might 
be  called  Contemptus  Naturalis ,  though  not  elicitus ;  Or 
whether  they  looking  at  him  as  apprehenfive  of  want  fuf- 
pedted  him ;  that  conceit  promoted  too  by  a  late  imagina¬ 
tion  of  the  crime,  as  likely  to  be  feditious.  However  it  was, 
the  man  was  fined  fourty  pound,  and  disfranchized. 

Another  is  Mr.  Sam:  Hutchinfon  who  (as  I  remember) 
upon  difiike  of  fome  proceedings  in  Court  out  of  .a  pang 
of  zeal,  though  otherwife  no  great  Crit-  #  tick,  afked  a  #  5 
queftion  of  them  in  way  of  fcruple,  whereupon  he  was 
cenfured  guilty  of  contempt,  and  (I  think)  fedition  too,  and 
fo  was  banifht.  But  obferve  the  wifdom  of  the  Court,  they 
perceiving,  in  that  he  did  but  meerly  afk  a  queftion,  that 
there  were  in  him  fome  fparks  of  truth,  and  ingenuity,  fent 
him  to  a  place  called,  The  IJle  of  Errours ,  that  by  the  cir- 
cumobfejience  of  corrupt  opinions,  that  little  good  which  he 
had  might  be  united  and  fortified,  and  he  at  length  reduced 
into  an  liability  of  cohabitation ;  which  effect  it  feems  it 
had  :  for,  as  I  hear  fince,  he  is  refumed  into  their  precindts. 
And  this  I  muft  fay  for  the  Court,  they  were  fo  courteous 
to  him  befides,  (rare  lenity ! )  as  that  they  allowed  him  lib- 
ertie  to  come  to  them  to  Bofton  once  a  moneth,  even  during 
his  expulfion ;  I  fuppofe  in  the  waning  of  the  Moon,  when 
his  hotter  fits  (as  they  conceived  them)  were  over,  thinking 
that  in  fome  competent  time,  he  might  be  perfectly  cured 
of  the  Lunacie  which  they  fuppofed  poffeffed  him. 


25 


The 


« 


1 94  Mercurius  Americanus. 

The  next  are  Mr.  CogJIiall ,  and  Mr.  AJpinall \  which 
latter  for  his  diflike  of  fome  proceedings  of  Court  was  ban- 
ifht,  and  Mr.  CogJIiall  Deputie,  prefuming  libertie  to  diffent 
from  the  major  part,  through  reluftation  of  his  confcience, 
and  reflection  upon  his  priviledge,  broke  forth  into  this 
exprefflon  :  That  if  he  could  not  be  heard ,  he  mujl :  whereat 
he  flopt,  which  might  have  been  well  interpreted ;  for  being 
incenfed  by  reafon  of  the  fevere  dealing  with  his  brethren 
before  him,  per  Imperium  voluntatis ,  and  out  of  brotherly 
love,  he  thought  he  muft  do  fomething,  although  his  rea¬ 
fon  (for  the  prefent  charmed  by  the  Magick  of  the  Court 
fo  powerfully  exercifed  upon  thofe  that  were  fentenced  be¬ 
fore  him)  could  not  tell  him  what,  whereupon  he  flopt  at 
the  word  mujl :  for  which  apojiopejis  he  was  disfranchized, 
as  one  that  through  fuch  eloquence  might  become  a  pefli- 
lent  fellow;  but  flnce  he  hath  lived  peaceably,  refolving 
never  to  difcover  more  Rhetorick  left  he  fliould  be  banifhed. 

The  next  in  his  book  is  Tho:  Marjhall, ,  the  Ferrie-man, 
as  he  calls  him ;  this  good  man  was  occupied  in  a  River 
called  Charles  River ,  direftly  betwixt  Bojlon ,  the  place  of 
thefe  Opinionifts,  and  Charles  Town,  and  other  Towns, 
where  his  fpirits  being  predifpofed  by  the  roughneffe  of 
winds  and  waves,  and  agitated  by  the  Counter  buff es  of 
Divinitie,  which  the  refpeftive  paffengers  vented,  he  might 
(you  will  fay)  eafily  be  inflamed ;  But  as  long  as  he  kept 
his  watery  Element  he  had  an  allay :  which  when  he  left, 
and  went  to  the  Court,  whether  he  did  (as  referring  to  the 
premiffes,  you  may  conceive  pofflble)  rudely  enter  into  the 
Court,  or  whether  his  feaver  beat  fo  to  his  fingers  ends,  as 

it 


Mercurius  Americanus. 


r95 


it  urged  him  to  fubfcribe  to  a  Petition ;  however  it  was,  he 
was  pronounced  guilty  (which  indeed  is  common  with  water¬ 
men)  of  contempt.  Hereupon  difplaced,  fince  which 
time,  for  want  of  that  imployment,  he  is  *  grown  fo  *  6 
poore,  that  he  will  not  be  able  to  pay  the  indifpenfa- 
ble  halfpeny  to  Charon  for  his  paffage. 

The  next  is  one  Tho :  Grydley ,  an  honeji  poore  man ,  (as 
the  Pamphleter  cals  him)  yet  (as  he  faith)  too  bufee  in  things 
above  his  reach ;  alas  good  man!  he  never  knew  that  qucv 
fupra  nos  nihil  ad  nos ,  but  the  Court  cured  him  of  his 
pragmaticalneffe  very  well ;  for  they  took  from  him  his 
imployment,  and  cenfured  him  an  abettor  of  contempt , 
and  /edition,  which  termes  he  never  hearing  before,  nor  not 
knowing  what  they  might  mean,  did  fo  amaze,  and  mafquer 
him,  that  ever  fince,  in  an  admiring  fpeculation  of,  and  gaz¬ 
ing  upon  them,  he  hath  flood  as  in  a  rapture  or  extafee,  not 
finding  leafure  for  new  action. 

There  is  one  more,  viz.  Mr.  Dyer,  he  was  charged  with 
contempt  too,  though  I  think  onely  disfranchifed,  that  his 
brain  might  move  in  a  leffe  compaffe,  whereupon  the  good 
man  was  united  into  an  ability  to  deliver  his  mind  concern¬ 
ing  an  opinion  of  his  in  the  Church,  which  our  Author 
faith  he  did  weakly  too.  In  fuch  cafes  as  thefe  me  thinks 
that  of  the  Apoftle  might  have  place :  If  any  one  be  over¬ 
taken  with  an  err  our,  ye  that  are  fpirituall  re/lore  ye  fuch  a 
one  in  the  fpirit  of  meekne/fe. 

The  firft  amongffc  the  women  is  Mrs.  Hutchinfon .  This 
is  Hie  who  he  faith  had  at  once  thirty  conceptions,  fome  big¬ 
ger,  fome  le/fer ,  fome  of  one  f  tape,  fome  of  another :  and  this 

he 


Mercurius  Americanus. 


196 

he  affures  us,  faying,  That  he  hath  learned  otherwife  ( bleffed 
be  his  Name )  then  to  delude  the  world  with  untruths.  I 
queftion  not  his  learning,  &c.  but  I  admire  his  certainty,  or 
rather  impudence :  did  the  man  obteflricate  ?  We  know  (as 
he  faith  of  himfelf,  he  fometimes  hangs  up  brats  againft  the 
Sun ,  but  furely  he  medled  not  with  thefe,  referved  I  fup- 
pofe,  &c.  unleffe  he  had  it  from  him  who  is  fo  eccentricke  in 
his  motion  (as  one  faith  of  him.)  But  what  if  he  had  it  from 
any  then  prefent  ?  will  that  fuffice  to  make  him  fo  confident, 
as  thereupon  to  take  occafion  to  ingage,  and  magnifie  Divine 
direction,  and  derive  this  not  known  by  him  to  be  a  truth, 
from  the  God  of  truth  ?  If  any  of  the  men  he  cals  Familifts, 
&c.  had  done  fo,  would  it  not  have  been  accounted  irrelig¬ 
ious  ?  relifhing  of  profanenes  ?  &c.  would  not  my  Authors 
fofteft  expofition  have  called  it  unfavourie? 

As  for  his  Analogy ,  which  he  obferves  betwixt  her  pro¬ 
ductions  and  opinions,  That  as  Jhe  held  thirty  of  the  one ,  fo 
fie  brought  forth  thirty  of  the  other:  Gods  wifdome  (he  faith) 
fitting  thofe  to  thefe:  It  is  a  monftrous  conception  of  his 
brain,  a  fpurious  iffue  of  his  intellect,  adled  upon  by  a 
fweatifh  and  Feaverifh  zeal,  which  indeed  beats  almoft  in 
every  line  ;  and  refolves  his  in  themfelves  imperfedl  fome¬ 
times,  if  not  feigned  fadts  into  phanatique  meditations.  For 
firffc  the  proportion  is  not  exaft,  for  he  reckons  not  30.  opin¬ 
ions  which  he  cals  Mrs.  Hutchinfons ,  and  thofe  many  of 
them  coincident  too,  made  more  I  fuppofe  to  prepare  for 
his  conceit.  Secondly,  but  admit  it  were,  yet  his  No- 
#  7  tion  *  is  impertinent,  for  he  brings  in  defeats  of  Nature, 
amongft  defedls  of  Manners.  All  he  can  fay  (if  he  were 

fo 


Mercurius  Americanus . 


l97 


fo  acute)  is,  that  thofe  are  thefe  reductive ,  and  as  they  are 
effects  of  fin.  A  poore  plea,  by  the  fame  reafon  he  may 
under  the  fame  title  difcover  all  the  weakneffes  and  naturall 
imperfections  either  of  man  or  woman,  and  fix  a  kind  of 
morality  upon  them  :  But  he  will  fay  perhaps,  that  this  birth 
was  an  extraordinary  defeCt:  It  avails  nothing,  unleffe  he 
will  either  raife  it  to  a  miracle,  or  at  the  leaft  prove  a  fuper- 
naturall  remiffion  of  the  formative  virtue  in  her.  That  will 
require  a  moft  accurate  phyficall  infpeCtion  which  I  think 
his  learning  will  not  reach,  although  (for  ought  I  can  fee) 
his  modefiy  might :  for  he  tels  us  of  women  purging  and 
vomiting,  what  if  the  diftemper  we  ufually  call  Cholera  did 
for  the  prefent  oppreffe  thofe  women  ?  muft  it  needs  be  pro¬ 
claimed  ?  muft  it  needs  be  in  print  ? 

As  for  Mrs.  Hutchinfon ,  fhe  was  a  woman  of  a  good  wit, 
and  not  onely  fo,  which  is  all  he  will  allow  her,  but  naturally 
of  a  good  judgement  too,  as  appeared  in  her  civill  occafions ; 
In  fpirituals  indeed  fhe  gave  her  underftanding  over  into 
the  power  of  fuggeftion  and  immediate  dictates,  by  reafon 
of  which  flie  had  many  ftrange  fancies,  and  erroneous  ten- 
ents  poffeffc  her,  efpecially  during  her  confinement,  where 
flie  might  feel  fome  effeCt  too  from  the  quality  of  humors, 
together  with  the  advantage  the  devill  took  of  her  condition 
attended  with  melancholy.  In  a  word,  as  guilty  of  moft  of 
thefe  errours,  and  for  a  pretended  revelation  of  the  deftruc- 
tion  of  the  Court,  flie  was  expelled  the  Bay  of  Maffa- 
chufetts.  . 

The  next  is  Mrs.  Dyer,  the  wife  of  Mr.  Dyer  aforenamed, 
flie  was  devoted  to  Mrs.  Hutchinfons  fancies ;  this  is  flie, 

who 


Mercurius  Americanus. 


198 

who  (he  fayes)  had  the  monfter :  whether  the  conceptions  of 
her  brain  had  influence  upon  the  conceptions  of  her  wombe, 
or  thefe  of  the  wombe  upon  thofe  of  the  brain,  I  will  not 
difcuffe.  This  difcoverer  inclines  to  the  former,  I  think  he 
might  by  a  deeper  fearch  have  reached  the  naturall  caufe 
whiled  he  in  his  Method  telling  us  her  penaltie,  judges  her 
for  her  errours  immediately  fentenced  from  heaven :  in 
which  paffage,  as  in  many  other  in  his  book,  a  fpirit  of  cen- 
fure  and  malice  is  pregnant. 

The  other  he  fpeaks  of  is  one  good  wife  Hctukins ,  who 
he  faith,  is  a  witch;  a  poore  filly  woman,  yet  having  fo 
much  wit,  as  perceiving  Mrs.  Hutchin:  ambitious  of  prof- 
elytes ,  to  fupply  her  wants,  fhe  attended  on  her  weekly 
Ledlure ,  (as  it  is  called)  where  when  Mrs.  Hutchinf on 
broached  any  new  dodtrine,  fhe  would  be  the  firft  would 
tafte  of  it :  And  being  demanded  whether  it  were  not  clear 
to  her,  though  fhe  underflood  it  not,  yet  would  fay,  Oh  yes 
very  clear.  By  which  means  fhe  got,  through  Mrs.  Hutch¬ 
inf  ons  affedtion  to  her,  fome  good  victuals,  infomuch  that 
fome  faid  fhe  followed  Chrift  for  loaves ;  Now  feeing  thofe 
things  were  fo,  me  thinks  our  Author  need  not  have 
*8  been  fo  rigid  #in  his  opinion  of  her.  Alas,  Ars  illcz 
sua  cenfus  erat ,  furely  a  little  leffe  gall  would  (as  con¬ 
cerning  others,  fo  her)  have  done  better  in  his  ink,  when,  as 
it  appears,  fhe  complied  with  her  patroneffe,  not  fo  much  out 
of  love  to  her  pofitions  as  poffets ,  being  guilty  I  think 
of  no  other  for  eerie,  unleffe  it  were  conjuring  the  fpirit  of 
Err  our  into  a  Cordiall. 


Thus 


Mercurius  Americanus .  199 

Thus  having  given  you  an  account  of  thefe  perfons,  and 
paffages,  I  cannot  but  obferve  thefe  things. 

Fird,  the  Reafons  which  all  thefe  men  might  propound 
to  themfelves,  for  doing  and  faying  what  they  did.  Alas, 
we  mud  look  at  them  as  men  who  had  left  their  edates, 
friends,  pleafures  of  their  native  foyl,  fpirituall  Chymijis , 
extracting  the  fweetneffe  of  all  into  freedom  of  confcience, 
doubting  not  but  they  might  dnd  all  in  that  Elixar ;  but 
as  no  Chymifl  yet  got  it,  fo  they  were  many  of  them  de¬ 
ceived  ;  which  when  they  furveyed,  and  fee  the  refult,  it 
might  trouble  the  weaker,  and  through  melancholy  fumes 
difpofe  them  to  drange  fancies  in  Divinity. 

Secondly,  the  verdiCt  of  the  Court  upon  them  all,  con¬ 
tempt,  which  furely  mud  proceed  from  the  drong  imprefdon 
that  the  fuppofed  contempt  of  Mr.  Wheelwright  made  in 
the  fancie  of  the  Governor ;  by  reafon  of  which  prepoffedion 
he  could  conceive  no  other  crime,  elfe  it  cannot  but  feem 
drange,  that  there  fhould  be  fuch  a  fympothy ,  that  fo  many 
men  and  women  too,  whofe  fex  may  inequalize  and  differ¬ 
ence  much,  fhould  all  run  into  the  fame  prczmunire.  Such 
a  continuity  of  fpirits  as  this  confent  of  theirs  mud  fuppofe, 
would  be  a  good  principle  of  the  Art  of  the  Weapon-falve. 

I  give  this  watch-word  to  you  all,  that  you  are  difgraced  in 
omni  graclu  nature e  intelleciivce  ac  pradtieez :  he  goes  drd 
from  pradticks ,  then  to  dodlrinals ,  then  again  to  pradlicks  ; 
thus  he  runs  in  a  circle  of  abufe.  In  the  underdanding  he 
weakens  you  two  wayes,  by  an  inordination  of  things  and 
tearms ;  of  things,  in  the  errors  ;  of  tearms,  in  the  unfavoury 
fpeeches  (as  he  cals  them ; )  in  praCtife,  by  all  the  poffible 

differences 


200 


Mercurius  Americanus. 


differences  of  exorbitance,  pride ,  boldneffe ,  mfolence ,  deceit , 
contempt,  /edition,  fchif me ;  all  which  are  indifferently,  and 
indiftindtly  charged  upon  you  in  the  Preface,  fo  that  indeed 
who  reads  it  would  think  you  all  equally  guilty  :  and  had  I 
any  premij/es  of  the  fame  nature,  concerning  fome  of  you, 
as  I  have  concerning  Mr.  Wheelwright,  I  fhould  vindicate 
you,  as  I  do  him.  But  feeing  I  have  not,  I  muft  apply 
my  felf  to  him  particularly,  and  free  him  from  thofe  errours 
and  unfavoury  fpeeches,  wherein  I  do  but  proceed  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  Rule  of  Art  which  attends  principale  analoga- 
tum,  which  by  his  own  faying  in  his  31.  pag .  is  Mr.  Wheel¬ 
wright ;  Now,  faith  he,  all  thefe,  except  Mr,  Wh:  were  but 
young  branches,  &c. 

The  way  wherby  I  muft  vindicate  Mr.  Wheelwright  is 
from  my  Authors  own  lines  in  his  42.  page,  where  he  tels 
us  of  the  opinions  which  he  {viz.  Mr.  Wh:)  oppofed  being 
thefe. 

#  9  #  Firft,  That  there  are  immediate  revelations  without 

the  Word.  Secondly,  That  the  child  of  God  is  dead, 
not  aTting  at  all,  but  as  Chri/l  alls  in  him.  Thirdly,  that 
there  is  no  inherent  righteoufnejfe  in  the  Saints.  Fourthly, 
that  the  Commandment  is  a  dead  letter.  Now  if  Mr.  Wheel¬ 
wright  (as  the  Author  gives  us)  do  abhor  thefe  pofitions,  let 
right  reafon,  and  the  ftrength  of  confequence  judge  whether 
he  can  be  juftly  entituled  either  to  the  unfavourie  fpeeches,  . 
or  to  any  of  the  errours;  And  firft  for  the  unfavoury  fpeeches. 

If  Mr.  Wheelwright  oppugne  the  opinion  of  immediate  rev¬ 
elations,  how  can  he  fay  that  evidencing  jufiification  by 
fandlification  favours  of  Rome?  For  if  he  denie  immedi¬ 
ate, 


Mercurius  Americanus. 


201 


ate,  he  muft  grant  mediate :  And  that  mediante  verbo , 
either  in  an  abfolute,  (as  he  grants  at  the  firft)  or  in  a  con- 
ditionall  promife,  as  he  holds  at  the  fecond  evidence ;  And 
many  can  vvitneffe  who  have  heard  him  approve  evidence 
of  juflification  by  fandtification,  but  what  need  of  that? 
doth  it  not  appear  in  the  principles,  they  themfelves  do  hap¬ 
pily  give  me  ? 

How  can  he  hold,  he  is  never  the  worfe  for  being  unholy, 
nor  the  better  for  being  holy,  when  he  grants  evidence  from 
holineffe  ? 

Or  how  can  he  fay,  if  Chrift  will  let  me  fin,  let  him ; 
when  as  he  holds  Chriftians  have  life  in  themfelves,  a  prin¬ 
ciple  from  which  they  adt.  Surely  M.  Wheelwright  hath  fo 
much  Logick,  as  to  know  frujlra  fit  potentia  qucz  non  re- 
ducitur  in  adlum. 

Or  how  can  he  fay,  I  fieek  not  grace  but  Chrifi ,  if  it  be 
meant  in  contempt  of  graces  ?  would  any  man  negledt  his 
evidences  ?  unleffe  he  mean  thus  ?  I  feek  not  graces  ulti¬ 
mate  &  refolutive ,  not  as  the  fupreme  but  fubordinate  end, 
not  as  principium  imperativum ,  but  diredtivum ,  not  as  quod , 
but  as  quo ,  not  to  reft  in  them,  but  to  move  by  them  to  the 
place  of  reft:  which  if  he  mean,  it  is  not  unfavoury,  but 
favours  of  fiublimated  purity  and  grace. 

Or  how  can  he  fay,  [/  know  I  am  Chrifis ,  not  because  I 
do  crucifie  the  flefii ,  but  becaufie  I  do  not ;]  when  he  expedts 
teftimony  of  falvation  by  fuch  adts  of  crucifying  ? 

Or  this,  If  Chrift  be  my  fandtification ,  what  need  I  look 
for  any  thing  to  evidence  my  jufiification ,  when  as  it  is  of 

the 


26 


202 


Mercurius  Americanus. 


the  fame  nature  with  the  former,  and  lies  expofed  to  the 
fame  inconfiftence  ? 

Now  I  come  to  the  firft  number  of  errours,  wherein 
although  many  things  be  coincident  with  the  former  unfa- 
voury  fpeeches,  and  with  the  latter  number,  yet  I  fhall  give 
you  an  exadt  account  of  the  particulars :  and  as  for  the  firft 
of  them  which  is,  That  the  preaching  of  the  Law  is  of  no 
ufe  to  drive  a  man  to  Chrift:  How  can  he  hold  it,  when  as 
he  faith,  Faith  comes  by  hearing  the  Word?  Now  if  he 
allow  the  Word  in  A  flu  completivo ,  in  the  completure  and 
evreXeyeia  of  a  Chriftians  mind,  much  more  in  fome  prepar¬ 
atory  and  difpofitive  a<5ts,  as  is  drawing  to  Chrift ; 
*  io  know,  that  reafon  gives  that  a  difpofi-  #tive  to  which 
it  will  not  give  a  completive  power,  as  to  cold  in  gen¬ 
eration ,  as  the  Philofophers  fay ;  furely  where  completion  is 
allowed,  much  more  difpoftion. 

Or  the  fecond,  That  a  man  is  united  to  Chrift  without 
faith ,  yea  from  eternity :  If  it  be  meant  refpedting  Gods 
decree,  it  is  true ;  but  if  actually,  how  can  Mr.  Wheelwright 
hold  it,  when  as  he  grants  there  is  fomething  on  mans  part 
to  receive  Chrift? 

Or  the  third,  viz.  That  faith  is  not  a  mans  receiving  of 
Chrift ,  but  a  mans  perceivmg  it:  this  is  true  if  de  reflexo 
aTtu  ;  false,  if  de  diretlo  atlu :  what  matter  in  this  ?  This 
is  a  meer  equivocation,  you  might  have  fpared  this,  but  you 
muffc  fill  up  the  Number. 

For  the  fourth,  That  a  man  is  united  to  Chrift  without 
any  atl  of  his :  it  is  the  fame  with  the  fecond,  and  may 
receive  the  fame  anfwer. 


For 


Mercurius  Americanus. 


203 


For  the  fifth,  which  is,  That  a  man  hath  never  effectually 
Chrijl  till  he  hath  affurance:  it  is  the  fame  with  the  third, 
and  is  true  if  meant  de  certitudine  objeCti :  but  if  fubjeCii, 
how  can  Mr.  Wh:  hold  it,  when  as  he  holds  the  ufe  of 
fignes,  to  confirm  faith  in  the  regenerate?  Which  muft 
needs  allow  it  fome  latitude,  and  not  limit  it  to  a  meer  pie - 
rophory  ;  and  furely  one  man  never  held  the  fourth  opinion 
and  this  too  ;  that  faying,  that  a  man  is  united  to  Chrifi: 
without  any  adt  of  his,  this,  that  a  man  cannot  be  Chrifts 
till  he  have  adted,  viz.  reflected ;  thefe  were  not  fo  confider- 
ately  jumbled  together,  efpecially  being  one  factions  brood , 
as  he  faith.  I  wonder  that  having  fuch  opportunity  to 
hang  thefe  brats  up  againfl  the  Sun,  he  did  not  hang  thefe 
further  one  off  the  other.  For  the  fixt,  which  is,  that  the 
witnes  of  the  Spirit  is  meerly  immediate,  without  any 
refpedt  to  the  Word,  how  can  Mr.  Wh:  hold  it  when  as 
he  oppofed  the  opinion  of  immediate  revelation  ? 

The  feventh  is,  When  a  man  hath  the  witneffe  of  the 
Spirit  he  never  doubts  more:  How  can  Mr.  Wh:  hold  this 
if  he  know  what  doubt  means,  being  motus  fuper  utramque 
partem  contradiCtionis :  when  as  he  grants  preventives  of 
the  motion  or  deviation  betwixt  thefe  two  tearms ;  in  grant¬ 
ing  confirmation,  which  is  a  fupply  of  a  defedt,  or  an  accef 
fary  to  a  principall  expofed  to  fome  degree  of  doubt  ? 

For  the  ninth,  it  fals  the  fame  with  this  former,  and 
being  in  the  fame  conclufion,  onely  differenced  by  a  fup- 
pofed  cafe  or  occafion,  it  will  not  call  for  a  fpeciall  anfwer. 

The  tenth  is,  SanCtification  can  be  no  evidence  of  a  mans 
good  eflate ;  How  can  Mr.  Wh:  hold  this  when  as  he  op- 

pugnes 


204 


Mercurius  Americanus. 


pugnes  immediate  revelations  without  the  word  ?  Why 
then  he  muft  grant  mediate ;  and  why  may  not  that  word 
refer  to  fanditie  ? 

The  12.  viz.  No  comfort  can  be  had  from  any  condi- 
#  1 1  tionall promife :  How  can  it  #  be  afferted  by  him,  who 
grants  evidence  from  Sanctification ,  which  evidence 
muft  needs  run  in  the  Channell  of  fome  conditionall  prom¬ 
ife,  if  not  fo  formally,  yet  vertually  and  by  way  of  refolution. 

The  12.  is,  that  to  fee  I  have  no  grace  at  alt ,  is  true  pov¬ 
erty  of  fpirit ,  and  it  CQmes  to  the  fame  with  fome  of  the 
former. 

The  1 3  is,  That  the  graces  of  Saints  and  hypocrites  differ 
not:  How  can  there  be  evidence  from  them  unleffe  they 
differ?  It  may  be  this  is  the  meaning,  they  differ  not  by 
any  pofitiue  thing  fuperadded,  but  praecifely  in  their  owne 
Natures ,  and  are  not  fo  properly  called  different  as  diverfe; 
but  this  is  a  meere  nicetie. 

The  14  A  hypocrite  may  have  Adams  graces  which  he 
had  in  his  innocencie :  it  comes  to  the  fame  fenfe  with  the 
former. 

The  15  is  this,  All  graces  are  in  Chrift  as  in  the  fubjedi , 
and  fo  in  us  as  Chrift  is  in  us ,  and  no  otherwaies ;  which 
cannot  be  attributed  to  Mr.  Wh.  when  as  he  holds  (as  before 
we  faid)  evidence  from  graces,  which  could  not  be,  unleffe 
they  were  in  us,  as  in  the  primary  and  immediat  fubjeTt ; 
neither  did  he  ever  make  Chrift  the  formall  principle  of 
fuch  actions,  as  beleeving  and  repenting,  which  this  tenent 
concludes. 

The  16,  which  is  this,  Chrift  is  the  new  creature ;  how 


can 


Mercurius  Americanus . 


205 

can  Mr.  Wh.  hold  it,  when  he  grants  evidence  from  the 
new  creation  of  graces  in  us? 

The  17.  God  loves  a  man  never  the  better  for  being  holy , 
nor  the  worfe  for  being  unholy:  how  can  he  defend  it?  who 
grants  manifeflation  of  Gods  favour  in  the  way  of  holineffe  ? 

The  18.  Sinne  in  a  child  of  God  mufl  never  trouble  him; 
which  opinion  is  apparently  reducible. 

The  19.  is,  Trouble  in  confcience  for  fenne,  fhewes  a  man 
to  be  under  a  Covenant  of  works  ;  how  can  he  hold  it,  when 
as  he  makes  accompt,  trouble  for  finne  in  the  Nature  of  a 
grace,  proportionally  fliews  a  man  to  be  under  a  Covenant 
of  grace? 

The  20.  A  Chriflian  is  not  bound  to  the  Law :  how  can 
he  think  it,  who  experts  comfort  in  a  way  of  fandtity  the 
ETtype  of  the  Law? 

For  the  21.  All  Covenants  made  to  God  in  words  are 
Legall ;  how  can  he  be  guilty  of  it,  who  holds  Religion  and 
Pietie  requifite  in  the  Saints  ?  which  furely  mufl;  needs  dif- 
cover  it  felf,  in  fome  godly  vowes  and  refolutions ;  unleffe 
we  will  reftraine  it  ad  aTtum  primum ,  which  were  abfurd : 
Perhaps  this  was  in  oppofition  to  Mr.  Weis  his  ftridt  Cove¬ 
nant  ;  never  to  break  Sabbath  more ,  never  to  think  idle 
thought  more ,  &c. 

The  22.  A  Chri/lian  is  not  bound  to  pray  except  the 
Spirit  move  him;  How  can  Mr.  Wh.  hold  it,  when  (as  be¬ 
fore)  he  commits  his  life  to  the  redfory  of  the  Law,  which 
bids  him  pray  continually  ?  what  need  he  ftay  till  the 
Spirit  moves  %  any  further,  when  as  he  grants  the  *  1 2 
Spirit  moves  only  in  the  word  ?  what  need  he  expedt 


the 


206 


Mercurius  Americanus. 


the  antecedent  motion  of  the  Spirit,  who  faith,  he  muft  begin 
to  pray  that  he  may  have  the  concomitant  ?  why  fhould  he 
fufpend  this  holy  action  for  an  Immediate  dictate,  whenas 
he  grants  Chriftians  have  a  principle  of  life,  from  which  they 
can  aft  ?  how  can  the  man  fo  found  in  the  premiffes  think 
himfelf  not  bound  to  pray,  but  when  the  Spirit  moves  him? 

The  23.  is  this,  A  man  who  hath  not  this  new  light ,  is 
not  able  to  edifie  others  who  have  it:  I  fuppofe  they  mean 
another,  quatenus  another,  and  fo  the  pofition  is  true  in  for¬ 
malin  for  nil  dat  quod  non  habet ,  but  then  the  word  quatenus 
muft  be  taken  reduplicative ,  and  not  fpecificative ,  unleffe  by 
the  tearme  they  attend  the  refpedlive  entitie,  in  regard  of 
which  it  muft  be  denyed  diredlly  and  per  fe  only  too,  not 
per  accidens ;  in  thefe  lenfes,  the  affertion  is  true:  but  if  we 
confider  the  materiale ,  and  fo  they  accompt  the  precedent 
errours  light,  I  deny  it  to  be  truth,  for  fuch  light  (which  I 
fhaddow  Mr.  Wh.  from)  is  indeed  darknes,  and  the  light 
which  our  Author  would  praeferre  to  fhame  Mr.  Wh.  is 
very  dull,  as  will  appeare ;  and  in  the  meane  time,  I  muft 
apply  that  faying  both  to  this  Opinionifl ,  and  to  my  Au- 
thour ,  If  the  light  that  is  in  you  be  darkneffe ,  how  great  is 
that  darkneffe  ? 

The  24.  is,  That  the  whole  Letter  of  the  Scripture  holds 
forth  a  Covenant  of  works  ;  it  is  true  in  fome  fenfe :  xam- 
ple,  Chrift  bids  the  young  man  keep  the  Commandements 
in  order  to  eternall  life  ;  This  in  the  letter  pretends  to  a 
Covenant  Legall,  whilft  in  its  Anagoge  it  intends  Chrift  the 
Authour  of  fufficiencie,  and  fo  pitches  upon  the  Covenant 
of  grace ;  but  that  the  whole  Letter  doth  fo,  cannot  bee 

Mr. 


Mercurius  Americanus. 


207 


Mr.  Wh.  affertion,  when  he  applies  him  felf  to  the  Law  as  a 
competent  Directory,  which  he  could  not  do  if  he  did  look 
at  it,  as  pitching  upon  a  Covenant  of  works  ? 

The  25.  is  this,  No  Chriftian  muft  be  preffed  to  duties  of 
holineffe ,  which  in  regard  of  the  good  expedted  by  Mr.  Wh. 
from  holines  cannot  be  his  dodtrine. 

The  26.  No  Chriftian  muft  be  exhorted  to  Faith ,  Love, 
& c.  admits  the  fame  anfwer. 

The  27.  is,  A  man  may  have  all  graces  and  yet  want 
Chrift ;  Indeed  he  may  have  reprefentations  of  them,  graces 
cequivoce ,  but  not  true  graces;  and  if  true  not  as  Synony¬ 
mous  to  faving,  but  as  oppofed  to  fained ;  but  in  the  evill 
fenfe,  how  can  Mr.  Wh.  hold  it,  when  as  he  attributes  unto 
graces,  power  to  evidence  Chrift  ? 

The  28.  is,  A  beleivers  Activity  is  only  to  aft  to  Jinne ; 
This  pofition  implies  Chrift  the  formall  principle  of  vertu- 
ous  Adts ;  which  conceit  wee  before  excufed  Mr.  Wh.  from. 
Indeed,  how  can  it  be  afcribed  to  him  who  (as  our  Authour 
tels  us)  oppofed  this  tenent  (viz.)  that  a  Chriftian  is,  ( that  is 
his  phrafe)  a  dead  lump  not  adting  at  all  ? 

*  Thus  I  have  runne  through  the  unfavory  fpeeches ,  *  13 
and  the  firft  fcroule  of  errours;  I  come  to  the  other 
fcroule,  being  82.  Why  might  not  all  thefe  pofitions  have  been 
put  in  one  Number ,  as  well  as  in  fo  many  ?  I  fliould  think,  were 
he  not  a  New-Englandman ,  that  he  intended  fome  myftery 
in  the  Number  of  3,  which  he  fo  oft  prefers,  firft  in  his 
Title ,  Rife ,  Raigne ,  Ruin ,  Familifts ,  Libertines ,  Antino- 
mians ,  cenfures  of  Church,  proceedings  of  Court,  Judgments 
of  heaven  upon  them ,  and  here  with  his  three  parcels ;  but 

furely 


208 


Mercurius  Americanus. 


furely  the  good  man  is  no  Pythagorifl ,  but  a  Platonijl 
rather,  which  his  feparate  Idecz ,  contempt,  and  fedition,  not 
properties  of  the  men  to  whom  he  attributes  them,  Chime- 
raes  only  of  his  reftleffe  braine,  declare  him ;  but  howfoever 
if  he  did  purpofe  a  Numerary  /pell,  seeing  thereby  he  doth 
many  times  repeate,  I  fhall  conjure  him  downe  with  meere 
Figures  fomtimes :  my  meaning  is,  that  in  regard  of  the 
recidence ,  not  in  fenfe  only,  but  words  many  of  them  into 
the  former,  I  would  be  excufed  though  I  do  not  give  you  a 
Particular  accompt,  as  before,  for  although  our  Authour 
hath  lavifhly  tautologized,  which  perhaps  may  be  Natural 
to  him,  and  fo  fcarce  admit  a  Criticifme ,  yet  I  will  not  trace 
him,  unwilling  to  oppreffe  the  Reader ,  and  draw  my  felfe  into 
the  fame  height  of  babling;  Nor  let  any  think  I  hereby 
feek  elusion,  verb  urn  fat  fapienti ,  let  fuch  examine. 

For  the  firft  ten  they  are  eafily  reducible. 

The  ii.  is,  As  Chrijl  was  once  made  fle/h ,  fo  is  he  in  us 
ere  we  be  carried  to  perfection ;  This  proportion,  as  many 
other  we  fhall  meet  withall,  is  wrapt  in  fuch  myfticall  terms, 
as  it  fcarce  falls  under  the  common  rules  of  conftrudtion  ; 
but  if  this  tenet  intends  Hypofiaticall  union ,  how  can  Mr. 
Wh.  approve  it,  when  as  by  the  Authours  confeffion  he  op- 
pofed  that  Dodtrine  which  fayes ;  Beleivers  aCt  not  at  all \ 
but  Chrijl  ads  in  them ,  and  doth  (as  before  named)  formally 
beleive  and  formally  repent ,  which  Mr.  Wh.  could  not 
rationally  contradidt,  if  he  patronized  this  notion ;  which 
being  granted,  a  believer  should  not  proximately  believe 
and  repent,  but  Chrift  muft  obtaine  rationem  formalis  prin - 
cipii  in  him. 


For 


Mercurius  Americanus . 


209 

For  the  12.  13.  14.  15.  16.  to  the  24.  they  are  in  the 
categorie  of  thofe  before  pretermitted,  as  reducible  to  the 
former. 

The  24.  is  this,  That  he  who  hath  the  Seale  of  the  Spirit 
may  judge  of  an  eleCl  perfon  ;  According  to  this  Affertion, 
one  Seale  muff  at  once  make  two  Characters :  which  opin¬ 
ion  I  muff  tel  mine  Author  plainly,  his  principles,  and  his 
parties,  rather  lead  to  then  Mr.  Wh.  for  a  refpeClive  impref 
fion ,  in  order  to  graces  inherent,  (fuch  as  theirs  is  pretended) 
may  in  al  reafon  fooner  by  the  fame  virtue  wherby  it  thews 
to  one  his  own  Election,  fhow  to  him  the  Election  of  an¬ 
other  in  whom  the  fame  perfections  may  be  apparent,  then 
an  IrrefpeClive  &  abfolute  impreffion ,  fuch  as  Mr.  Wh.  is 
accounted,  as  will  be  feene  in  their  opinions  concerning 
evidence  of  falvation ;  however,  how  can  Mr.  Wh.  own  this, 
unleffe  he  either  think  Gods  eternall  Decree  attendeth  fome 
quality,  the  Symbolicalneffe  of  which  might  direCt  him  . 
in  his  cenfure  ?  or  unleffe  he  hold  Immediat  *  revela-  #  14 
tions  without  the  Word,  within  it  there  being  no  such 
pertinences  ?  Or  unleffe  he  prefume  to  look  in  fpeculo  Trin- 
itatis  ?  Which  Mr.  Welds  feems  to  do,  whileft  he  tels  us  what 
God  hath  pardoned  in  heaven,  and  to  whom  he  purpofes  his 
immediate  punifhments  on  earth. 

By  our  Reafon  of  coincidence  we  paffe  to  the  28.  which  is 
the  firft  we  can  find  challenging  a  particular  anfwer,  and  that 
fcarcely  too ;  it  is  this  :  To  affrm,  there  mujl  be  faith  on 
mans  part,  to  receive  Chrift,  is  to  undermine  Chrift :  this  is 
nothing,  but  an  efflux  of  the  former  fancie  of  hypoftaticall 
union ;  the  use  of  faith  is  to  apprehend  Chrift  fub  conceptu 

fortnali : 


2  10 


Mercurius  Americanus. 


f or  mail :  the  effeft  of  which  is  a  fpirituall  union,  not  at 
all  in  that  which  may  be  more  phyjically  looked  at,  viz.  the 
hypojlaticall :  The  next  confiderable  is  the  33.,  which  is  this. 
To  aid  by  vertue  of  a  command  is  legall.  This  is  Mr.  Wh: 
which  taken  C7im  grano  falis ,  will  be  favoury  enough.  Let 
us  know  to  aft  legally  may  be  taken  two  wayes :  Vel  non 
attendendo  principium  effeclivum  atdionis ,  vel  formate  five 
exemplare.  In  the  firft  Reafon,  they  aft  legally  who  think 
to  do  things  in  their  own  ftrength  formally.  In  the  fecond, 
they  aft  legally  who  think  to  do  fo  confirutdive ,  and  by  way 
of  interpretation,  fuch  as  the  Gofpels  young  man ,  who  did 
fulfill  the  Commandments  fub  ratione  particulari.  In 
which  aft  he  expefted  vertue  from  Chrift,  and  fo  in  the  firft 
fenfe  afted  not  legally.  But  he  did  not,  fub  ratione  magis 
univerfali ,  &  eminentiori ,  and  therefore  he  afted  legally  in 
my  fecond  fenfe.  In  his  Acceffe  to  the  Law  under  its  typicall 
and  immediate  pretence,  was  his  ewofia  in  his  receffe  from  it 
under  its  reflexive  intention ,  and  true  Evangelicall  Tropolo- 
gie  was  his  avofia.  To  aft  legally  is  to  recede  from  the 
virtue,  by  which  one  is  to  aft ;  which  virtue  of  Chrift  is  vel 
Chrifii  tanquam  ejficientis ,  vel  tanquam  Idece.  To  aft  by 
vertue  of  a  command,  that  is,  immediately  from  it,  is,  Vel 
immediatione  virtutis ,  vel  fuppofiti:  they  who  aft  by  ftrength 
of  a  command  in  this  firft  fenfe,  attend  not  Chrift  either  in 
the  reafon  of  an  efficient  or  Idece,  and  fo  muft  needs  aft 
legally  both  wayes.  For  the  command  hath  a  twofold  habi¬ 
tude ,  directive  and  objective,  he  who  afts  immediately  from 
the  directive  order  of  the  Law,  afts  legally,  non  attingendo 
Chrifium  ut  Ideam :  he  who  afts  immediately  from  the  ob - 


Mercurius  Americanus. 


2 1 1 


jedlive ,  acts  legally,  Non  attingendo  Chrifium ,  ut  efficientem . 
And  thus  its  true,  to  aft  by  virtue  of  a  command  is  legall ; 
but  if  it  be  meant  immediatione  fuppojiti  (not  that  I  think 
a  command  hath  properly  fuppojitalitie ,  but  onely  aliquid 
Analogum ,  which  reaches  my  notion  and  intent)  it  is  not 
true,  that  to  aft  by  virtue  of  a  command  is  legall. 

The  next  confiderable  is  the  41.  which  is  this:  There  be 
diflindl  feafons  of  the  workings  of  the  perfons  in  the  facred 
Trinity,  fo  that  a  man  may  be  faid  to  be  thus  long  under  the 
work  of  the  Father ,  and  thus  long  tinder  the  work  of  the 
Son ,  and  thus  long  under  the  work  of  the  holy  Ghofl .  If  by 
this,  we  are  fo  long  under  the  Father,  be  intended  onely  an 
exclufion  of  the  Son  in  fome  eminence ,  and  degree  of 
at-  *  tribution.  It  is  not  againft  that  received  maxime ,  *  15 
Opera  Trinitatis  ad  extra  funt  indivifa :  and  the  gener- 
all  opinion  of  Divines  excufes  it  from  a  paradox ;  For  what 
more  common  then  to  attribute  redemption  to  the  Son  ?  con- 
folation  to  the  holy  Ghofl?  What  more  ufuall  then  to  fay, 
the  Father  humbles,  the  Son  raifes  up,  the  holy  Ghofl  com¬ 
forts  ?  Touching  which,  I  thus  conceive;  that  the  very 
fame  individed  effence  as  it  doth  put  on  divers  reafons  or 
notions  (as  the  Schoolmen  fpeak)  is  faid  to  perform  divers 
aftions  not  by  a  fimple  exclufion  of  the  A  ttributes  of  any  of 
them  in  this  or  that  Aft,  but  onely  fecundum  quid \  Notion- 
ally ,  as  we  may  conceive,  according  to  the  common  quid- 
ditie.  The  Father  is  in  himfelf,  and  fo  produces  a  Son  of 
comfort,  by  refleftion,  he  loves  that  iffue,  and  fo  educeth 
illumination ;  in  this  fenfe,  Opera  ad  extra  funt  divifa ,  for 
from  the  divifion  ad  intra ,  why  may  there  not  follow  a  pro- 

portionall 


212 


Mercurius  Americanus. 


portionall  divifion  ad  extra  too?  feeing  the  relations  of 
thofe  divided  adts  are  reall,  and  extra  intelledlum ,  which 
would  otherwife  plead  Reafon  for  their  limitation  ;  I  say  why 
may  they  not  have  fome  effedt  upon  the  adts  ad  extra  too  ? 
and  make  them  in  fome  fenfe  divifa  ?  And  if  it  be  im¬ 
proper  to  fay,  Dcus  eft  trium  perfonarum ,  but  onely  effentia 
eft  trium ,  &c,  why  may  there  not  be  fome  impropriety  to  fay 
(I  mean  in  oppofition  to  the  above-named  Dodlrine)  that, 
Deus  eft  triu7n  Adluam  refpedtively,  when  as  thefe  adts  do 
in  the  common  opinion  attend  thofe  relations  ?  But  if  an 
abfolute  and  fimple  divifion  be  intended,  Mr.  Wk.  cannot 
hold  it ;  when  (as  it  is  very  abfurd  in  it  felf,  fo)  his  dodtrine 
of  evidence  by  fandtiftcation ,  where  there  muft  be  Chrifts 
attradlive ,  and  the  Spirits  illuminative  power,  and  of  fignes 
which  require  a  concurrence,  proclaims. 

The  next  is  this,  Conditionall  promifes  are  legall:  If  it 
be  meant  that  they  are  in  a  legall  form,  its  true,  whether 
caufaliter  or  confequutive ;  But  if  it  be  meant  that  they  are 
legall  virtually ,  and  fo  not  to  be  made  ufe  of  in  the  time  of 
the  G  of  pel,  how  can  Mr.  Wh:  hold  it,  when  as  he  grants 
evidence  from  graces,  conditionall  promifes  being  the  cur¬ 
rent  wherein  fuch  evidences  paffe  ? 

The  next  confiderable  is  this :  to  lay  the  Brethren  under 
a  covenant  of  works  hurts  not  at  all ’  but  tends  to  much  good. 
What  did  I  fay  confiderable  ?  a  pofition  ftrangely  produced 
as  it  were  in  an  indifference  twixt  truth  and  errour :  if  it  be 
prefented  as  an  errour,  we  muft  needs  by  reafon  of  the  in- 
definitenes  of  the  phrafe  fuppofe  all  Brethren  to  be  under  a 
covenant  of  grace.  If  it  be  a  truth,  what  doth  it  among 

errours  ? 


Mercurius  Americanus . 


213 


errours  ?  to  make  even  number  ?  What  fhall  we  fay  ?  its 
neither  true  nor  falfe,  but  hands  in  a  pure  precifion;  he 
imagined  though  perhaps  that  the  confinity  of  errours 
(wherein  obferve  how  his  malice  multiplies  herefies  upon 
them)  would  determine  its  neutrality ,  and  hereupon  ingages 
at  once  all  his  Metaphyjicks  to  effedt  an  abftradtion 
which  he  might  # have  referved  till  an  exigence,  and  #i6 
in  the  mean  while  have  referred  this  Janus  to  the 
unfavoury  fpeeches  with  which  it  mod  fymbolizes.  But  he 
was  afraid,  left  it  fo  eafily  feafonable  either  way,  fhould  have 
feafoned  them,  which  he  prefers  to  difrelifh  the  appetite  of 
the  Reader ,  to  the  parties  concerned  in  his  Narration.  But 
he  faith,  if  it  be  good  to  lay  the  Brethren  under  a  Covenant 
of  works,  then  it  is  good  to  bite  one  another :  which  argu¬ 
ment  is  much  like  one  of  his  brats  he  hangs  up  againd  the 
Sun. 

The  next  is  this :  Faith  jujiifies  an  unbeleever.  If  the 
fenfe  be,  that  the  faith  fubjedted  in  Chrid  judifies  me  in 
whom  there  is  not  any,  its  falfe :  if  you  take  it  in  Jenfu  com- 
pojito ,  it  is  fo,  if  in  divifo ,  its  true.  I  wonder  fuch  grave 
difcurdds  (as  my  Author  by  his  ffcyle  feems)  fhould  with 
thefe  poore  fubtilties  put  us  upon  fuch  elementary  diftinc- 
Hons,  in  refolving  which  Simthis  Logick  will  claim  a  prin- 
cipall  fhare.  But  perhaps  he  did  it  to  evade  a  more  folid 
reply,  thinking  no  Eagle  would  catch  fuch  dyes.  Which 
way  of  his  is  in  the  mean  time  my  advantage,  whiled  by 
medling  only  in  my  fphere  I  cannot  be  faid  to  prefume, 
which  incourages  me  yet  to  tell  him  that  this  opinion  is  a 

confeRarie 


214  Mercurius  Americanus . 

con/ePtarie  of  theirs,  who  deny  graces  in  the  Saints,  not  of 
Mr.  Wh:  dodlrine  who  grants  them. 

The  reft  of  the  Affertions  are  either  coincident,  or  fuch 
as  concern  Church  Difcipline,  wherein  difagreement  is  not 
pretended. 

Thus  we  have  done  with  his  pretended  err  ours.  Now  we 
come  to  his  pretended  Crimes,  viz.  contempt  and  /edition; 
which  the  Court  pickt  out  of  a  Sermon  of  his,  he  preached 
upon  a  Fad-day  defigned  for  peace,  the  fubftance  whereof 
was  this:  Chrifts  abfence  is  a  main  caufe  of  fading,  there¬ 
fore  labour  for  him  revealed  in  the  Covenant  of  grace; 
peace  is  to  be  fought  in  fuch  a  drawing  neer  the  God  of 
peace;  and  oppofe  thofe  by  contending  for  the  faith,  but 
fpiritually,  who  go  the  way  of  the  Covenant  of  works  (as  in 
that  thing)  (wherein  indeed  they  are  oppofite  to  the  end  of 
the  day)  as  enemies  to  grace,  and  in  that  refpedl  perfecuters 
of  Chrid,  as  (which  word  I  fuppofe  is,  ft cut  qualitatis  onely) 
Herod ,  Pilat ,  and  the  Jews.  This  is  the  doPtrine  wherein 
the  fpirit  of  /edition  and  contempt  breathes  according  to 
their  opinion ;  I  will  therefore  briefly  leaving  the  fuller  dif- 
cuffion  to  Statifls ,  (by  fome  of  which  Mr.  Wh:  hath  been 
already  cleared,)  examine. 

Contemptus  eft  ex  hoc  quod  aliquis  renuit  ftibjici  legi 
bonce ;  conferre,  the  Magidrates  publifh  a  Fad  in  order  to 
peace,  whether  this  publication  have  the  compleat  Nature 
of  a  Law,  let  others  determine.  But  admit,  Mr.  Wh: 
whiled  he  tels  them,  peace  is  the  mod  eadly  attainable  in 
Chrift ,  to  whom  they  mud  apply  themfelves  in  a  Covenant 
of  grace,  twarts  not  their  Law,  unleffe  it  had  expreffed  the 

method 


Mercurius  Americanus . 


215 


method  which  the  Minifier  muft  ufe,  or  unleffe  Mr. 

Wh:  #  had  done  that,  the  contrary  of  which  it  did  *17 
neceffarily  imply  ;  But  there  is  no  fuch  matter,  for  in 
his  generall  terme,  a  Covenant  of  grace ,  he  could  not  be  in¬ 
ordinate,  but  admit  explication ,  though  it  might  render  fuf- 
pition  of  unfoundneffe  in  dodlrine ;  yet  not  fufpition,  much 
leffe  apparency  of  difobedience  to  civill  difcipline,  therefore 
what  negledt  of  Authority  was  here,  when  neither  the  ex- 
preffion  nor  conftruftive  intention  of  their  Mandate  was 
croffed  ?  Or,  if  it  had  been,  yet  not  the  primary  end,  and 
fo  could  not  confHtute  fuch  an  offence :  As  for  finis  oper- 
antis ,  the  ends  they  themfelves  referved,  how  could  he  attend  ? 
unleffe  we  either  fuppofe  a  coincidence ,  or  unleffe  they  think 
it  requifite,  Clergie-men  fhould  ftudy  Myfieries  of  State ,  or 
unleffe  (which  they  feem  to  abhor)  he  fhould  have  expedled 
immediate  revelation  of  them?  [ Renuit ]  he  will  not ;  that 
prefuppofes  admonition,  and  fuppofes  contumacie,  Mr.  Wh: 
had  no  fuch  preparatories ;  If  he  had  reiterated  the  dif- 
courfe,  though  innocent,  there  had  been  more  pretence . 
But  grant  further  he  had,  yet  a  meer  repetition  makes  not 
frequency  ;  But  admit,  yet  frequentia  peccati  non  facit pecca- 
tum  ex  contemptu ,  fed  difponit  ad  hoc :  according  to  Aqui¬ 
nas.  It  is  far  then  from  contempt,  which  is  not  fo  much  as 
a  bare  difpofition  towards  it  ?  what  if  he  did  (this  as  a  fup- 
pofition,  onely)  decline  the  next  purpofe  of  the  day  ?  yet  if 
he  did  reach  it  more  eminently  by  fetting  up  Chrifi ,  whofe 
abfence  he  told  them  was  the  caufe  of  fafting,  muft  he  have 
thefe  crimes  attributed  to  him,  becaufe  he  did  fo  concifely 
compleat  their  defires  ?  might  they  not  have  taken  up  them¬ 
felves 


Mercurius  Americanus. 


21 6 

felves  twixt  his  fuppofed  receffe ,  and  relapfe  before  they  pro¬ 
ceeded  to  cenfure  ?  But  our  Author  faith;  (pag.  52.  wherein 
he  intends  aggravation)  whereas  Mr .  Cotton  urged  peace , 
Mr.  Wh:  contention  in  the  afternoon :  Y es,  but  it  was  fpir- 
ituall,  and  for  a  Covenant  of  grace  too :  the  way  of  peace, 
as  in  that  generality,  cannot  be  denyed.  The  fpirits  of  men 
in  Winter  (as  it  was  then)  have  too  much  afperity  in  the 
morning  to  be  trufted  with  zealotifmes ,  which  in  the  after¬ 
noon  their  more  mollified  difpofitions  may  admit :  but  more 
ferionjly :  what  would  this  man  have  by  this  circumjlance  ? 
where  is  the  fence  of  it  ?  or  how  aggravates  it  ?  would  he 
have  had  Mr.  Wh:  Text  to  have  been  impofed  by  the 
Court  ?  were  not  that  to  limit  the  Spirit  ?  or  would  he  have 
had  him  betwixt  forenoon  and  evening  Exercife,  not  being 
half  an  houres  fpace,  by  reafon  of  the  directive  Sermon,  to 
have  purified  his  meditations  into  fuch  a  complexion  ?  Or 
would  he  have  had  him  feeing  there  was  no  time,  to  change 
his  text ,  or  his  Notions,  to  have  defified  before  his paroxyfme? 
Alas !  fo  the  Church  as  well  as  the  State  might  have  appre¬ 
hended  contempt.  Or  if  he  had  in  fuch  an  Auditory  ad¬ 
ventured  upon  an  extemporarie  difcourfe,  would  not  your 
Moderatfis  confirudlion  have  pitched  upon  negledi?  But 
what  need  of  all  this  ?  Mr.  Cotton  and  He  agreed  in 
*  1 8  *  the  main,  both  their  labours  directed  to  the  fame 
fcope,  (viz.  to  bring  men  to  Chrift ,  the  difference  of 
preci/ion ,  and  degrees  of  heat  allowed  :  fo  that  if  his  Sermon 
offered  violence  to  the  day,  yet  where  is  that  which  is  pre¬ 
tended  to  the  State?  Admit  incongruity,  yet  where  is  the 
contempt  ?  If  it  had  been  any  thing,  it  had  rather  been  in- 

difcretion 


Mercurius  Americanus . 


2  I  7 

difcretion  then  contempt ;  and  rather  indifpojition  than  indif- 
cretion. 

But  they  fay,  By  thofe  under  a  covenant  of  works ,  he 
meant  them,  fome  Magiftrates  and  fome  Minifiers  ;  and  that 
he  knew  they  went  the  way  which  he  defcribed  to  be  a  cove¬ 
nant  of  works .  Admit,  yet  his  expreffions  from  the  Pulpit 
in  the  common  Rules  of  conftrudtion  can  have  no  fuch 
reference :  Or  fuppofe  they  might  have  reference,  yet  not 
of  caiifality  but  connexion  onely,  which  would  give  no  ad¬ 
vantage  to  feczilar  power,  or  Ecclefeafiicall  either.  But 
further,  grant  a  reference  of  caufality ,  that  may  be  con¬ 
cerned  in  the  Authority  of  the  keyes,  not  of  the  Court. 

He  inftances  in  that  difference  of  Proteftants  and  Pa- 
pifis ,  fub  una  &  fub  utraq :,  as  a  paralell  cafe  ;  but  it  is  not, 
for  thofe  tearms  did  denote  upon  the  free  acknowledgement 
of  the  right  of  their  refpedlive  attributions :  it  is  not  fo  in 
this  matter,  where  the  phrafe  Under  the  Covenant  of  works , 
is  not  confeffed  by  the  Magiftrates ,  &c.  as  their  condition ; 
therefore  to  fay  under  a  covenant  of  works,  and  under  a  cov¬ 
enant  of  grace,  is  not  as  much  as  to  fay,  Magiftrates,  &c. 
and  fome  others,  there  being  much  diftance  twixt  this  occa- 
fion  and  the  former. 

He  would  at  length  puzzle  the  people  with  fubtilties, 
whil’ft  he  talks  of  defignation  to  common  intendments,  fay¬ 
ing,  That  which  defigns  a  man  to  common  intendments  doth 
as  much  as  if  it  fiould  name  the  man;  Which  phrafe  if 
applyed  muft  prefume,  that  the  Magiffcrats  and  Minifters 
he  pleads  for,  are  by  that  member  of  the  divifion  under  a 
Covenant  of  works :  commonly  intended,  A  pretty  peece  of 

work, 


28 


Mercurius  Americanus. 


218 

work,  wherein  to  give  you  his  upfhot,  firft  he  contradicts 
himfelf,  fecondly,  totally  excufes  Mr.  Wh.  thirdly,  he  ac- 
cufes  his  own  partie  more  than  ever  any  did.  A  brave 
Champion,  firft  he  contradicts  himfelf  in  faying,  thefe  things 
were  never  heard  of  before  Mr.  Wh.  came  into  the  country  ; 
p.  24.  whereas  it  feems  it  was  vox  populi  before,  for  he  was 
then  but  newly  arrived,  and  this  the  firft  time  he  (hewed 
himfelf  in  that  publick  way. 

Secondly,  he  excufeth  Mr.  Wh.  for  when  to  ftopp  his 
mouth,  we  had  halfe  allowed  him  indiferetion  in  that  Ser¬ 
mon  of  Mr.  Wh.  yet  he  will  needs  cleere  him  from  it,  by 
implying  that  through  the  common  rumour  of  Magiftrates , 
&c.  walking  the  way  of  the  Covenant  of  works,  there  might 
be  occafion  miniftred  unto  him,  and  need  for  fuch  a  dif- 
courfe. 

Thirdly,  he  accufeth  both  the  Magiftrates  and  Min- 
#  19  ifters,  more  then  any  #yet  did,  by  intimating  a  prece¬ 
dent  continued,  and  manifeft  addiction  of  theirs  to 
Legalifme ,  whil’ft  he  declares  them  commonly  intended  by 
that  expreffion,  under  a  Covenant  of  works ,  and  by  the  gen- 
erall  opinion  of  the  people  wrapt  in  it. 

This  was  a  great  overfight,  unleffe  by  a  check  of  his 
confidence  fuggefting  Mr.  Wh.  innocencie,  he  was  moved 
to  vindicate  him  fecretly  from  crime,  and  therefore  would 
myfiically  do  it  in  the  word  Intendment ,  to  purge  his  heart 
frcm  malignity  of  opinion. 

And  whereas  he  faith,  p.  25.  The  former  Magiftrates  and 
Minifters  had  great  dif ref  pelt  after  Mr.  Wh.  his  Sermon , 
which  he  faith,  was  the  caufe  of  it. 


I 


Mercurius  Americanus .  2  1 9 

I  anfwer,  Firft,  It  is  not  known  that  ever  they  had  any 
notable  negledt. 

Secondly,  Admit,  yet  his  inference  may  intitle  the  Gof 
pel  to  fedition. 

Thirdly,  The  inequality  of  obfervance  did  not  proceed 
from  any  effect  Mr.  Wh .  Sermon  had  upon  them ;  as  in 
that  inftance  of  the  Halberds ,  the  former  Governor  having 
more  carried  before  him  then  his  fitccejfour  ;  and  in  the 
expeditions  againft  the  Pequeds ,  but  from  the  affedlion 
which  fome  defigned  to  thofe  offices,  bore  to  the  then 
Governor  Sr.  He:  Vain ,  who  by  his  noble,  affable  and  dif- 
cret  carriage,  ingaged  their  utmoft  attendance ;  where  ob- 
ferve  the  edge  of  Malice,  which  when  it  dare  not  fuppreffed 
by  fear,  openly,  yet  fecretly  it  will  fix,  though  he  do  not 
inroll  Sr.  Henry  amongft  Familifis,  &c.  Though  he  will 
not  fay,  he  was  fuch  a  Sectary ,  yet  whilft  he  talks  of  his 
preferment  above  the  following  Governor ,  as  an  Iffue  of 
Mr.  Wh:  Sermon,  upon  his  own  premiffes ,  he  neceffarily 
inferrs  it. 

And  wheras  he  faith,  That  before  Mr.  Wh.  came  over , 
all  things  were  peaceable ,  after  his  arrival l  nothing  but 
divi/ion.  I  anfwer:  Firft,  he  contradicts  himfelf,  for  he 
tels  us  Mrs.  Hutchinfon  vented  her  Opinions  in  the  fhip 
as  file  came  over,  pa.  31.  he  tels  us,  file  drew  many  to  her, 
pa.  32.  he  tels  us,  file  procured  countenance  from  eminent 
perfons,  pa.  33.  hence  (faith  he)  was  the  trouble  to  the  Paf 
tor  of  Bofton ,  &c.  hence,  faith  he,  Mr.  Wh:  took  courage  to 
inveigh  in  his  Sermon ,  &c.  It  feems  then  there  was  Divi- 
fions  before  Mr.  Wh:  Sermon,  and  that  it  was  an  effedf  of 

them 


220 


Mercurius  Americanus . 


them  rather  then  a  caufe.  Secondly,  there  was  a  company 
in  the  Bay  before  he  came,  who  upon  fuppofition  of  2  par¬ 
ties,  one  under  the  Covenant  of  works ,  the  other  themfelves 
under  the  Covenant  of  grace ,  had  refolved  upon  fchifme, 
expedling  onely  a  beck  from  the  Pulpit ;  which  when  by 
reafon  of  Mr.  Wh:  naming  a  Covenant  of  works  and  of 
grace ,  (though  not  with  any  fuch  pertinence,  their  prepared 
phanfies ,  thought  they  had)  they  took  this  I  doll  of  their 
own  brains,  for  a  providence  of  heaven,  and  hereupon  facri- 
ficed  their  premeditated  endeavours  to  it,  as  it  had  been  the 
Image  which  fell  down  from  Jupiter ;  which  doing  of 
#  20  theirs  Mr.  Wh:  was  not  acceffary  to,  their  pre-  *  tended 
Covenant  of  grace  being  compofed  of  errours ,  his  cov¬ 
enant  of  grace  which  to  decline  legalifme  he  preferred,  being 
free  from  them,  carrying  along  with  it  the  grace  of  the  cove¬ 
nant.  He  tels  us,  pa.  26.  of  a  writing  which  much  con¬ 
cerned  Mr.  Wh:  to  read,  that  might  be ;  it  may  be  it  was 
our  Authors,  for  all  his  (as  he  faith  of  his  book)  are  necef- 
fary  for  States,  much  more  for  private  perfo7is  ;  but  it  feems 
Mr.  Wh:  was  fo  dull  as  not  to  conceive  the  neceffity,  for  he 
did  not  read  it,  as  we  are  told ;  what  then  ?  perhaps  he  was 
otherwife  imployed :  But  what  faies  the  man  ?  Which  did 
argue  (faith  he)  the  height  and  pride  of  his  fpirit :  what 
need  thefe  fynonyma  ?  were  not  pride  enough  ?  this  argues 
my  Authors  malice  and  virulencie ;  but  is  he  not  afhamed 
to  talk  ftill  of  arguing,  when  his  Independent  brain  bath  s 
bewrayed  fuch  inconfequence  ?  Let  him  never  think  here¬ 
after  with  any  judicious  Reader  to  be  reputed  for  a  fyllo- 
gifl:  but  if  he  think  he  fhall  hide  his  talent  unleffe  he 

imploy 


Mercurius  Americanus . 


22  I 


imploy  the  Preffe,  let  him  rather  (as  one  faid)  write  meer 
hijlory ,  and  fuch  too  where  in  partiall  ref  pedis  may  not 
byaffe  him  to  errour.  Which  way  (as  though  he  prefaged 
diflike  of  his  co7itr overfall  difcourfes)  he  hath  already  taken 
in  his  book ,  now  at  the  Preffe,  called,  A  Narration  of  the 
pradlife  of  N.  E.  wherein  he  may  do  (as  in  things  that  fall 
under  his  fenfe)  much  better,  then  in  polemicatl  Effayes, 
where  he  doth  but  lofe  himfelf,  and  over-ballace  his  muddy 
intelledluals. 

Nay  fo  vaft  is  my  Author  in  his  apprehenfion  of  pernicious 
effedls  from  Mr.  Wh:  Sermon,  that  he  would  make  people 
beleeve,  it  not  onely  moved  all  Societies  on  the  Land,  but 
that  it  had  its  influence  upon  vejfels  at  Sea  ( thats  his p hr afe) 
How ,  faith  he ,  did  it  hinder  all  affairs  in  Courts ,  in  Towns , 
in  Families ,  in  vejfels  at  Sea?  pa,  58.  As  though  it  had 
been  like  that  commotion  of  the  earth  lately  there,  which 
Ships  at  a  great  diflance  felt ;  as  though  Mr.  Wh:  had 
made  an  Earthquake  amongft  them.  Whereas  (which  I 
hope  the  Reader  will  conceive)  it  was  nothing  but  N  E  cald 
a  Trepidation  of  the  fpheres  in  that  New  Heaven ,  a  New 
&c.  Heaven‘ 


Another  pretended  crime  of  his,  is  f edition,  which  is  thus 
defined  :  Seditio  eft  prceparatio  ad  impugnationem  corpora - 
lem ;  A  preparation  to  a  bodily  fight:  now  how  did  Mr. 
Wh:  Sermon  prepare  for  fuch  a  fight  ?  He  bids  them  in¬ 
deed  in  the  Apoflles  expreffion  contend  for  the  faith,  &c. 
but  he  defignes  (as  before  we  file  wed)  no  parties.  Or  if  he 
had,  it  was  to  a  fpirituall  confiidl,  as  he  explain’d  himfelf, 
which  re  fp  eels  not  civill  unity,  or  unit  at em  Juris,  as  f edition 

doth, 


222 


Mercurius  Americanus. 


doth,  but  Ecclejiajlique ;  and  fo  at  the  moft  it  could  be  but 
fchifme ;  and  not  that  neither,  unleffe  his  dodlrine  be  proved 
contra  utilitatem ,  and  fo  be  errour.  Nay,  that  is  not  enough 
neither,  unleffe  it  were  in  fundamentals ,  and  fo  might  be 
called  herejie ;  for  fchifma  alwayes  Jibi  aliquant  confingat 
herejin ,  fchifme  is  ever  attended  with  herejie  in  the  opinion 
of  the  learned :  nor  is  all  this  fufficient  to  bring  it  under 
the  cenfure  of  the  Church  it  felf,  unleffe  it  be  per  fe 
#  2 1  #  intentum :  for  that  which  is  per  accidens ,  no  more  in 

morals  than  in  Naturals,  can  conftitute  a  fpecies ,  fuch  as 
facred  Authority  mufl  proceed  upon  ;  as  I  faid  before  of  con¬ 
tempt ,  fo  of  this,  if  it  had  been  any  thing  it  had  rather  been 
faction  then  f edition,  and  rather  fchifme  then  faction.  Before 
my  Author  propound  his  reafons  wherby  he  would  fallen 
thefe  crimes  upon  Mr.  Wh:  he  wifely  premifes  thus ;  faith 
he,  p.  52.  Such  as  would  receive  fatis faction  may ,  if  they 
will  read  that  which  follows ,  &c.  carrying  this  along  with 
them ,  that  the  aids,  &c.  He  faith  true  in  this,  fuch  as 
come  prejudicate  and  prefuming  neceffity  of  juflice  from 
N.  E .  may  fatisfie  themfelves  in  his  Apology)  but  as  for 
others,  let  them  attend  his  defcriptions,  and  it  will  appear 
they  do  as  little  fit  Mr.  Wh:  practice  as  his  examples.  Se - 
ditiofus  (faith  he)  eft  qui  facit  diffenftonem  animorum :  good 
in  it  felf,  but  applyed  rudiori  Minerva ,  if  it  be  taken  rightly, 
viz.  Diffention  in  or  dine  ad  civilem  unit  at em  :  left  f edition 
and  fchifme  be  confounded,  and  the  word  facit  be  fo  quali¬ 
fied  .  as  to  exclude  accidentall,  occafionall,  and  periftaticall 
adlion  upon  mens  minds,  it  concerns  not  Mr.  Wh:  cafe,  it 
being  neceffary  too,  (which  I  may  adde)  that  it  be  not  onely 

motu 


Mercurius  Americanus . 


223 


motu  prcevio ,  but  concomitativo ,  which  is  moil  intrinfick,  and 
of  the  formal  reafon  of  velleitie  which  muft  be  fuppofed  at 
the  lead  in  fuch  a  crime,  his  other  defcriptions,  cum  fcevit 
populus ,  &c.  and  cum  eunt  alii  in  aliud,  call  for  the  fame 
redridlions,  and  refer  to  the  firft. 

He  exemplifies  to  as  little  purpofe,  as  in  Demetrius  his 
fedition,  and  Corah  with  his  complices :  this  is  much  like 
his  fub  una  &  fub  utraque ,  as  little  paralell  where  he  intends, 
Demetrms  named  the  man,  This  Paul \  &c.  And  fo  did 
Korah  particularize,  Mr.  Wh:  nothing  fo,  he  onely  fpake 
in  theji,  the  Hypothejis  was  their  own,  the  application  was 
theirs.  My  Author  cannot  make  it  appear  their  cafes  are 
alike,  unleffe  he  refume  his  fublime  Notion  of  Dejignation 
to  common  intendments ,  &c.  by  which  he  might  falve  the 
Phenomena  ;  but  we  have  tried  that  before. 

That  which  he  faith,  viz .  my  Author ,  of  Mr.  Wh:  vehe- 
mencie  of  fpirit ,  and  voyce  in  proclaiming  them  perfecuters , 
and  A  n  tic  hr  if  ia  n ,  who  walk  the  way  of  a  covenant  of  works, 
it  muft  be  reckoned  amongft  his  impertinences,  feeing  the 
degree  doth  not  vary  the  kind;  let  him  be  as  urgent  as  he 
pleafeth.  Salva  ratione  fidei,  falva  fpecie,  whiled  he  keeps 
within  that  univerfality  againd  thofe  which  are  Legalifts 
which  he  did  and  onely  did,  let  me  ufe  my  Authors  main 
Argument,  which  we  meet  with  prefently.  Put  the  cafe  in 
a  Reverfed  Frame,  if  my  Author  had  darned  in  zeal  never 
fo  much  againd  Mr.  Wh:  Sermon,  or  fome  of  the  Opinion- 
ids,  would  he  have  admitted  that  as  a  topicke  of  Sedition  ? 
In  fuch  a  particularization  which  is  more  than  he  can  bx 
upon  Mr.  Wh:  would  not  the  equity  of  his  caufe  have  been 

his 


Mercurius  Americanus. 


224 

his  plea  ?  Doth  he  not  therefore  rove  a  little  in  this  dif- 
courfe  ?  if  vehemencie  of  fpirit  and  voice  infer  /edition, 
*22  it  will  be  dangerous  *  to  have  good  Lungs;  let  my 
Author  take  heed  he  intrench  not  upon  his  Divinity 
tenure ,  and  infcribe  that  to  crime  which  intitles  him  to  the 
Pulpit.  But  Mr.  Wh:  his  vehemencie  made  him  not  exor¬ 
bitant,  he  mift  not  the  cujhion ,  nor  was  he  fo  fierce  as  my 
Author  was  when  he  faid,  Lye  with  him  DevilL \  fleep  with 
him  Devill ,  &c.  Mr.  Wh:  promoted  a  Covenant  of  grace  by 
a  fpirituall  profiration  of  its  oppofites.  Aud  this  in  gen- 
erall  too,  this  is  all  he  did :  what,  Pretenders  to  fo  much 
charitie,  Reformation,  Chriftian  liberty  ?  &c.  A  new 
Heaven  and  a  new  Earth  (as  fome  faid  of  them)  and  fo, 
KaT  igoxvv  celeftiall ,  arraign,  fentence,  imprifon,  banifh  a 
man  of  their  Church  too?  And  as  though  this  were  not 
enough,  Inftare  morienti  to  fame  him  an  Heretique ,  Anti- 
nomian ,  feditious  perfon,  what  not?  and  this  in  print,  with 
all  poffible  difgrace  and  diminution ;  and  that  after  he  had 
repented  too  (as  is  confeffed)  one  upon  whom  he  faith  he 
would  not  reflect  anything,  his  meaning  is,  I  fuppofe,  that 
the  rayes  of  his  malice  fhould  fall  diredlly  upon  Mr.  Wh: 
and  all  this  for  fo  fmall  a  matter  ?  Tanta  fallacia  ?  &c. 
May  I  not  retort,  Tantcene  animis  coeleftibus  ircz?  His 
following  difcourfe  is  a  P  anegyrick  of  difcretiim ,  which  he 
by  his  ufuall  clapping  together  of  Scriptures  magnifies  the 
more,  becaufe  he  conceives  it  wanting  in  Mr.  Wh.  But 
how  comes  it  in  here  under  his  title,  viz.  a  Proof  of 
Sedition  and  contempt?  furely  he  doth  not  think  that  in- 
difcretion  involveth  contempt.  What  doth  this  curious 

Impertinent 


Mercurius  Americanus. 


22  5 


Impertinent  mean  ?  I  fhould  think  that  there  were  a 
fecret  and  eneigeticall  fubjidence  of  all  into  this  vice,  and 
that  in  his  opinion  too,  if  he  had  not  (as  we  before  fhewed) 
cleared  Mr.  Wh.  from  fuch  offence.  See  how  confufed  the 
man  is,  he  would  convidl  him  of  contempt,  and  yet  vindi¬ 
cates  him  from  indifcretion,  as  though  that  could  be  with¬ 
out  this,  what  he  means  by  difcretion  I  know  not.  But  if 
it  be  that  which  is  ufually  called  fpirituall  difcerning,  my 
Author  did  ufe  to  annex  it  to  the  tribe,  &c. 

His  laft  and  main  ftratagem  whereby  he  will  prevail  upon 
the  moft  prejudicate,  apd  fcrupulous  fpirits ,  is  to  put  the 
cafe  (as  he  faith)  in  a  rev  erf ed  frame ,  his  words  are  thefe  : 
p.  57.  But  if  any  fhall  yet  pretend  want  of  fatis faction , 
&c.  put  the  cafe  in  a  reverfed  frame  if  fome  others  had 
taught  it,  &c.  would  not  Mr .  Wh:  and,  &c.  have  looked 
at  themf elves  as  intended ?  Yes  furely,  for  a  proper  adjundl 
may  defigne  a  particular  company,  as  well  as  names,  as  Judas 
by  the  fop.  This  is  an  excellent  devife :  A  conjecture  what 
Mr.  Wh:  and  the  other  partie  would  have  faid  upon  the 
like  inveCtive  :  I  know  not  what  they  would  have  faid,  &c. 
nor  do  I  know  what  to  fay  to  this  his  mafter-peece  of  put¬ 
ting  the  cafe,  &c.  unleffe  I  fhould  put  it  into  the  cafe.  Quid 
dignum  tanto  ?  &c.  Shall  we  negledl  it  ?  No,  the  necefjity 
of  the  times  may  call  for  it,  it  is  the  very  diftilled  quintef- 
fence  of  his  brain,  his  Catholicon.  We  will  (if  we  can) 
fqueeze  fome  fenfe  out  of  it,  or  at  the  leaffc  leave  it  in  a 
capacitie  ;  if  it  have  any  force  for  the  prefent,  we  muft 
#  fuppofe  our  Author  knows ,  per  fpecies  concreatas :  *23 
But  I  would  not  reflect  zip  on  him,  (as  he  of  Mr.  Wh:) 


29 


as 


226 


Mercurius  Americanus. 


as  though  he  had  no  more  wit  than  he  was  born  with :  But 
what  if  he  knew  what  they  would  fay,  fhall  their  pradlife,  or 
fpeech,  which  may  (as  they  are  men)  proceed  from  paffion 
diredl  yours  ?  If  they  fliould  take  offence  at  a  little  forward - 
neffe,  freene/fe,  and  irrefpeclivenejfe  of  difcourfe,  and  beat  it 
out  as  you  have  done  into  /edition  and  contempt ,  fhall  that 
be  your  Apologie ?  Are  a  company  of  F ami  Lifts,  Libertines , 
&c.  fo  atithe7itick  ?  If  it  muff  be  fo,  let  Mr.  Wh:  or  fome 
So  ac_  others  fend  word  what  they  would  fay,  and  this  great 
counted  oration  of  my  Authors ,  even  tota  hcec  Roma  ruit  cum 
m  N‘  e*  viribus  fuis:  of  all  his  coincidences ,  impertinences ,  foie- 
cifmes ,  fruitleffe  and  weak  ebullitions ,  this  is  the  worft,  for 
thofe  may  be  adled  upon,  and  refined  by  wit.  But  as  for 
this,  it  may  hand  eternally  before  it  can  receive  a  good  con - 
ftrudtion ,  all  the  colour  and  appearance  of  reafon  it  can  ad¬ 
mit,  muft  be  expedled  in  a  meffage  from  New  England , 
declaring  what  they  would  fay,  & c.  My  Author  might  do 
well,  to  compa/fe  Sea  to  make  a  Profelite ,  to  go  himfelf 
thither  and  procure  an  expreffe ,  but  I  doubt  he  will  not,  his 
mind  doth  fo  run  upon  the  fop :  where  I  leave  him ;  And 
in  the  mean  time  I  leave  this  high  ftrain  of  his,  if  the 
winds  and  feas  favour  in  a  poffibilitie  of  being  cloathed  with 
a  little  kind  of  fenfe ,  or  the  beft  kind  of  nonfenfe :  Alas ! 
poore  argtiment .  The  cafe  in  a  reverfed  Frame  might  bet¬ 
ter  have  been  kept  in  the  cafe  then  dut  into  the  Frame. 

He  concludes  this  difcourfe  thus  ;  That  to  lay  thofe  under 
a  Covenant  of  works ,  who  have  fuffered  as  much  as  himfelf, 
favours  not  of  a  brotherly  fpirit ,  p.  58.  This  can  be  looked 
at  no  otherwayes  then  as  an  impertinence  too  if  the  Apoftle 

fpeak 


Mercurius  Americanus. 


227 


fpeak  truth  :  If  I  give  my  body  to  be  burnt,  &c.  I  do  not 
ingage  myfelf  in  the  difpute,  &c.  onely  I  fay  utcunque  his 
conclufion  is  not  conclufive :  he  makes  bad  premifes ,  and 
worfe  conclufion . 

Seeing  thefe  things  are  fo,  that  there  is  fo  little  ground 
for  these  pretended  crimes ,  feeing  there  can  be  no  contempt 
found  in  Mr.  Wh.  Sermon .  we  will  rather  impute  the  un- 
deferved  cenfures  to  fome  other  caufe  then  to  the  meer 
malice  of  the  Court ,  which  fome  uncharitably  do. 

Whether  it  were  a  ftrong  imagination  of  the  then  Deputy 
upon  Mr.  Wh:  which  by  the  power  annexed  to  phanjie  pro¬ 
duced  fome  contemptuous  behaviour  in  him  while  he  was 
before  them  ? 

Or  whether  it  were  that  he,  viz.  the  Deputy ,  being  then 
occafionally  in  contemplation  of  contempt ,  and  prefuming  of 
the  infallibility  of  his  fcience ,  being  (as  he  thought  it)  not 
Jimplicis  intelligenticz  (which  is  more  likely)  but  vijionis , 
which  in  that  reafon  muff  have  aliquid  externum  de  facto 
reprefentative  of  it,  thereupon  pitched  on  contempt ,  as  Mr. 
Wh:  delinquencie. 

Or  whether  it  were  (which  is  probable ,  in  the  def- 
picableneffe  of  the  State ,  *  and  efpecially  of  the  then  *  24 
Deputie ,  late  Governor ,  and  in  regard  of  the  affedtion 
of  the  people,  and  that  defervedly)  to  that  worthy  gentleman 
then  Governour ,  Sir  Hen:  Vain ,  unlikely  to  return  into 
that  preferment  fpeedily ;  I  fay,  whether  in  regard  of  his 
condition,  his  melancholy  temper ,  feconded,  as  obferved,  by 
a  fullen  conflellation  then  predominant,  he  did  abfolutely 
determine  he  was  contemned ,  fome  way,  or  other,  and  fo 


cum 


228 


Mercurius  Americanus. 


cum  nemini  obtrudi  potuit ,  he  charged  it  upon  Mr.  Wh: 
And  fo  /edition,  by  way  of  concomitance  ;  Sedition  and  con¬ 
tempt  being  twins ,  as  he  ufed  to  fay ;  howfoever  Mr.  Wh: 
was  fentenced  guilty  of  the  faults ,  and  thereupon  bani/ht , 
imprifoned  firft :  upon  requeft  indeed  difmiffed  to  his  fam¬ 
ily ,  not  to  flay  though  above  twelve  dayes  upon  pain  of 
ftridteft  cenfure ,  although  in  a  remote  place,  where  they  could 
not  fear  any  effedl  from  the  pretended  vices,  &c.  And 
although  in  fo  cold  a  feafon  of  the  yeer,  wherein  I  think, 
had  he  had  the  very  extracted  fpirits  of  /edition,  and  con¬ 
tempt ,  they  would  have  been  frozen  up,  and  indifpofd  for 
Action. 

Thus  faith  my  Author ,  p.  43.  it  p leafed  the  Lord  to  hear 
his  poore  people,  whofe  fouls  had  wept  in  fecret,  for  the  re¬ 
proach,  &c.  I  defire  to  know  of  Mr.  Welds  what  he  means 
by  pleafing  of  the  Lord  ?  whether  ratione  voluntatis  Deter- 
minantis,  vel  determinates  l  In  the  mean  while,  let  the 
Reader  judge  whether  he  have  not  caufe  to  weep  not  onely 
in  fecret,  but  openly  for  the  reproaches  which  he  hath  caft 
upon  fome.  He  goes  on  thus :  It  is  the  Lords  doings,  and 
it  is  marvellous  in  our  eyes.  Mr.  Wh.  is  gone  to  Pafcal, 
& c.  what  then?  it  was  neither  contra,  nor preeter,  nor  fupra 
naturam,  for  Mr.  Wh:  to  go  to  Pafcal:  where  is  the  won¬ 
der  l  I  confeffe  it  was  marvellous  he  got  thither  at  that 
time,  when  they  expelled  him,  by  reafon  of  the  deep  j how  in 
which  he  might  have  periflied.  Whether  my  Author  pro¬ 
fane  not  Scripture  in  this,  I  will  refer  it  to  thofe  whom 
in  the  fame  page  he  fpeaks  of,  Viz  his  dear  and  beloved 
Brethren. 


FINIS. 


WHEELWRIGHT’S  WILL. 


The  laft  will  &  Testam*  of  ye  Reverend  mr  John 
Wheellwright,  who:  died  ye  15th  of  Novembr 
1679. 

In  ye  name  of  god  Amen 

May  ye  25  :  1679 

JOHN  WHEELLRIGHT  Paffor  of  ye 
church  of  Chrift  att  Salifbury  in  ye  County  of 
Norfolk  in  Newengland  although  aged  in 
yeares  &  weake  in  body  yet  pfedt  in  &  of  a 
difpofed  minde:  Doe  make  &  declare  this 
to  bee  my  laft  will  &  Teftamen*  in  writing:  Revokeing  all 
my  former  wills  &  teftaments  whatfoever  hereto  fore  by 
mee  made  &  declared :  ffirft  I  doe  contend  my  Soule  into 
ye  hands  of  all  mighty  god,  confidently  beleiuing  in  him  to 
bee  faved  through  ye  riches  of  his  grace  by  faith  in  Jefus 
Chrift  my  Savior  &  redeemer:  my  body  I  comitt  to  ye 
Earth  in  an  affuered  hope  of  a  bleffed  refurredtion  of  ye 
fame  at  ye  laft  day  to  enjoy  that  happie  fruition  of  f  king- 
dome  prpared  in  heaven  for  all  his  eledt 


As 


230 


Wheelwright* s  Will . 

As  concerning  my  eftate  lands,  &  worldly  goods :  I  will 
&  do  difpofe  of  them  as  followeth 

1 .  I  doe  giue  vnto  my  grand  child  Edward  Lyde  that  part 
of  my  Meffuage  being  &  fcituate  in  Mumby  in  Lincoln- 
fheire  in  ould  England  wch  part  conifts  of  Ten  acres  of 
pafture  lijng  &  beeing  in  Langhum,  bee  it  more  or  lefs,  & 
all  y t  land  of  mine  wc  lieth  in  Minge  with  the  lands  of  mr 
Newcomin  being  in  Mumby  for  wch  my  pafture  in  Minge 
ye  fd  Newcomin  payeth  mee  three  povnds  W  annfi  as  ap¬ 
pear  eth  by  a  leafe  wc  hee  hath  of  it,  &  it  is  my  will  that  my 
aforefd  Grand  childe  Edward  Lyde  fliall  have  ye  aforefd 
part  wth  all  ye  privilidges  &  appurtenances  thervnto  beelong¬ 
ing  to  him  &  his  heires  for  ever,  pVided  that  ye  fd  Lyde  do 
pay  or  caufe  to  bee  payd  vnto  his  mother  Mary  Attkinfon 
or  her  order  the  anuall  rent  or  pduce  of  ye  fay’d  lands  duering 
ye  terme  of  her  naturall  life,  but  in  cafe  that  Edward  Lyde 
fhould  die  before  he  cometh  to  ye  age  of  twenty  one  yeares, 
then  I  doe  giue  ye  lands  afore  mentioned  vnto  my  Sone 
Samuell  Wheelwright  vnto  himfelfe  &  his  heires  forever 
hee  paying  or  caufing  to  bee  payd  ye  rent  &  produce  of  the 
fai’d  lands  vnto  my  daughter  Attkinfon  duering  ye  continu¬ 
ance  of  her  naturall  life. 

2.  I  doe  giue  &  bequeath  vnto  my  grand  daughter  Mary 
Mavericke  all  ye  reft  of  my  land  being  part  of  ye  aforefai’d 
meffuage  lijng  and  fcituate  in  Mumby  aforefd  My  houfe  wth 
all  ye  pafture  arrable  meadow  &  coihones  with  all  privilidges 
&  appurtenances  therevnto  belonging  to  that  part  of  my  mef¬ 
fuage  being  lately  in  ye  occupation  of  Earft  and  his 
widdow,  vnto  ye  fd  Mary  Mavericke  &  vnto  her  &  her 
heires  forever,  who  of  her  body  fhalbe  Lawfully  begotten 


3- 


231 


Wheelwright's  Will . 

3.  I  doe  giue  &  bequeath  vnto  my  fone  in  law  Edw : 
Rifhworth  fifty  acres  of  vpland  &  twenty  acres  of  marfh 
land:  &  my  will  is  after  his  deceafe  I  doe  giue  ye  fd  land  & 
meadow  wth  all  ye  privilidges  &  appurtenances  thereto 
belonging  vnto  *  Mary  White  my  grand  childe  daughter  of 
ye  fd  Rifhworth  to  her  &  her  heires  for  ever,  &  for  want  of 
fuch  heires  I  giue  it  vnto  my  fone  Sam1.1.  Wheelwright  & 
his  heires  for  ever  wch  vpland  &  meadow  is  thus  to  bee 
divided  lijng  in  ye  townfhip  of  Wells,  ye  bounds  on  ye 
South  weft  is  Ogunquet  River  &  foe  to  runne  ye  breadth 
of  my  farme  in  that  part  of  it  vn till  ye  fifty  acres  of  up¬ 
land  bee  compleated,  &  twenty  acres  of  marfh  to  runne 
ye  full  breadth  lijng  vpon  ye  Wefterly  end  of  my  farme 
next  adjoyning  to  or  neare  ye  Eftermoft  part  of  ye  fd  land 

4.  I  doe  giue  &  bequeath  unto  my  grand  childeren 
Thomas  &  Jacob  Bradbury  forty  pounds  fterlg:  a  peece 
to  each  of  them  in  currant  money  of  New-england,  by  my 
Executor  when  they  doe  come  vnto  ye  age  of  xone  & 
twenty  xyears,  either  of  them  dijng  before  they  doe  come 
to  that  age  then  ye  pfon  Surviueing  fhall  haue  ye  whole  • 
fowerfcore  pounds 

5. .  I  do  giue  &  bequeath  vnto  my  fone  Sam1.1.  Wheel¬ 
wright  of  Wells  all  my  land  lijng  in  ye  towne  of  Crafft  in 
ye  Covnty  of  Lyncolne  in  ould  England  neare  Waneflitt 
in  ye  fame  Covnty  wth  all  ye  privilidges  &  appurtenances 
therevnto  belonging  to  him  &  his  heires  for  ever  and  I 
doe  further  giue  vnto  him  my  aforefd  Sone  Samuell  all 
my  houfes  lands  marfh  meadows  fcituate  &  being  in  ye 
townfhip  of  Wells  in  ye  Covnty  of  York  in  Newengland 
with  all  ye  privilidges  &  appurtenances  thervnto  belong- 


232 


Wheelwright* s  Will. 

ing  [excepting  before  excepted]  that  land  &  marfly  wch  by 
mee  was  giuen  as  aboue  fpecified  vnto  my  Sone  in  law 
Edward  Ritli worth  To  my  aforefd  fone  Sam11.  Wheelwright 
to  his  heires  &  affignes  forever:  And  I  do  further  giue 
vnto  my  fone  Samuel  Wheelwright  my  clock  &  all  my 
library  &  bookes  &  all  my  Apparrell  &  all  ye  reft  of  my  eftate 
&  goods  not  difpofed  of  in  this  will  excepting  the  rents  I 
have  owing  to  mee  in  ould-england  halfe  wherof  I  do  giue 
vnto  my  Executor  &  ye  other  halfe  to  bee  divided  equally 
between  my  three  grand  children  William  Thomas  &  Jacob 
Bradbury  In  cafe  my  Executor  do  recover  it  &  if  it  fo 
happen  that  one  or  more  of  thofe  three  children  fhall  die 
before  they  come  to  age  then  hee  or  thofe  y1  doe  furviue 
fhall  haue  ye  part  of  him  or  thofe  that  are  deceafed 

6.  And  further  I  do  giue  vnto  my  latter  wyfes  Childeren 
all  my  plate  to  bee  equally  divided  amongft  them  by  two 
indifferent  plons  chofen  by  themfelues  to  make  that  diviffion 
Laftly  I  doe  make  ordeine  &  conftitute  my  fone  Sam1.1. 
Wheele wright  of  Wells  aforefd  to  bee  ye  foie  Executor  of  this 
my  laft  will  &  Teftament  by  whom  care  is  to  bee  taken 
for  payment  of  my  juft  debts  &  difcharging  of  ye  legafies 
&  funerall  expences  In  wittnefs  whervnto  I  have  here  vnto 
affixed  my  hand  &  feale  at  ye  day  &  date  hereof : 

John  Wheelwright 

\vth  his  feale  to  it. 

Signed  &  fealed  in  ye 
pTence  of  vs 

Jn?  fflood  }  Jn°  fflood  aged  27  years  tef- 

John  Price  >  tifieth  yt  hee  was  pTent  &  did 

Henry  Ambross  )  fee  Mr  Jn°  Wheelwright  iigne 

feale 


233 


Wheelwright* s  W ill. 

feale  &  deliver,  declare  &  publifli  this  to  bee  his  laft  will 
&  Tesftam1:  &  y1  hee  was  of  a  difpofeing  minde  &  all  on  ye 
day  of  ye  date  therof 

Taken  vpon  Oath  y®  26th  of  Novembr  1679  In  Bofton 
before  mee 

Hum  :  Davie  Affift : 

Henry  Ambros  in  ye  pTence  of  ye  Worlliipfull  Nath?. 
Saltonflall  Efqr  &  Capt  John  Gillman  Affofiate  wth  ye  re¬ 
corder  of  ye  Covnty  of  Norfolk  gaue  Oath  ye  4th  of  Decmbr 
1679  that  hee  ye  fd  Ambros  faw  ye  Reverend  Mr  Jn°  Wheel¬ 
wright  figne  &  feale  &  heard  him  publifh  &  declare  this 
will  to  bee  his  laft  will  &  Teftam1:  And  that  hee  was  then 
of  a  difpofeing  minde  &  y*  ye  fd  Ambrofs  knowes  of  no 
other :  So  attefts 

Tho:  Bradbury  recdr 

This  will  beeing  pTented  by  ye  Executor  therin  named 
was  applied  of  &  allowed  of  by  ye  worfhipfull  Nath1.1.  Salton- 
ftall  affift  &  Cap^  J  n°  Gillman  affotiate :  &  comifsf  vpon  ye 
evidence  aboufd:  ye  4th  of  Decembr  1679  The  Recorder 
of  ye  Covnty  being  prfent :  So  attefts 

Tho:  Bradbury  recdr 

And  ye  Executor  is  to  prfent  a  true  inventory  of  ye  eflate 
vnto  ye  nex  Covnty  Court  for  Norfolke 

Tho:  Bradbury  recdr 

Entred  ye  5th  of  Decembr 
1679 


3° 


THE  PRINCE  SOCIETY. 


OFFICERS 

OF 

THE  PRINCE  SOCIETY. 


Prefident. 

JOHN  WARD  DEAN,  A.M . Boston,  Mass. 

Vice-Prefidents. 

JOHN  WINGATE  THORNTON,  A.M.  .  .  .  Boston,  Mass. 

The  Rev.  EDMUND  F.  SLAFTER,  A.M.  .  .  Boston,  Mass. 

WILLIAM  B.  TRASK,  Esq . Boston,  Mass. 

The  Hon.  CHARLES  H.  BELL,  A.M . Exeter,  N.  H. 


Correfponding  Secretary. 

CHARLES  W.  TUTTLE,  A.M . Boston,  Mass. 

Recording  Secretary. 

DAVID  GREENE  HASKINS,  Jr.,  A.M.  .  .  .  Cambridge,  Mass. 


7'reaf urer. 


ELBRIDGE  H.  GOSS,  Esq 


Boston,  Mass. 


THE  PRINCE  SOCIETY. 

1876. 


The  Hon.  Charles  Francis  Adams,  LL.D. . 

Samuel  Agnew,  Efq . 

Salomon  Alofsen,  Efq . 

Thomas  Coffin  Amory,  A.M . 

William  Sumner  Appleton,  A.M . 

Walter  T.  Avery,  Efq . 

George  L.  Balcom,  Efq . 

Jofeph  Ballard,  Efq . 

S.  L.  M.  Barlow,  Efq . 

Nathaniel  J.  Bartlett,  A.B . 

The  Hon.  Charles  H.  Bell,  A.M.  .  .  . 

John  J.  Bell,  A.M . 

Samuel  L.  Boardman,  Efq . 

The  Hon.  James  Ware  Bradbury,  LL.D.  . 

John  M.  Bradbury,  Efq . 

J.  Carfon  Brevoort,  LL.D . 

Mrs.  John  Carter  Brown . 

John  Marfhall  Brown,  A.M . 

Jofeph  O.  Brown,  Efq . 

Hubbard  W.  Bryant,  Efq . 

Thomas  O.  H.  P.  Burnham,  Efq. 

George  Bennet  Butler,  Efq . 

George  Bigelow  Chafe,  A.M.  .  .  .  .  . 

The  Hon.  Mellen  Chamberlain,  A.M.  . 
William  Eaton  Chandler,  A.M . 


Bofton,  Mafs. 
Philadelphia,  Pa. 
Amfterdam,  Netherlands. 
Bofton,  Mafs. 

Bofton,  Mafs. 

New  York,  N.Y. 
Claremont,  N.H. 

Bofton,  Mafs. 

New  York,  N.Y. 

Bofton,  Mafs. 

Exeter,  N.H. 

Exeter,  N.H. 

Augufta,  Me. 

Augufta,  Me. 

Ipfwich,  Mafs. 

Brooklyn,  N.Y. 
Providence,  R.I. 

Portland,  Me. 

New  York,  N.Y. 

Portland,  Me. 

Bofton,  Mafs. 

New  York,  N.Y. 

Bofton,  Mafs. 

Chelfea,  Mafs. 

Concord,  N.H. 


The  Prince  Society 

Lucius  E.  Chittenden,  A.M . 

Ethan  N.  Coburn,  Efq . 

Jeremiah  Colburn,  A.M . 

Jofeph  J.  Cooke,  Efq . 

Deloraine  P.  Corey,  Efq . 

Eraftus  Corning,  Efq . 

Ellery  Bicknell  Crane,  Efq . 

Abram  E.  Cutter,  Efq . 

The  Rev.  Edwin  A.  Dalrymple,  S.T.D . 

William  M.  Darlington,  Efq . 

Henry  B.  Dawfon,  Efq . 

Charles  Deane,  LL.D . 

John  Ward  Dean,  A.M . 

The  Rev.  Henry  Martyn  Dexter,  D.D . 

Samuel  Adams  Drake . 

Harry  H.  Edes,  Efq . 

Jonathan  Edwards,  A.B.,  M.D . 

Samuel  Eliot,  LL.D . 

The  Rev.  George  E.  Ellis,  D.D.  .* . 

Alfred  Langdon  Elwyn,  M.D . 

James  Emott,  Efq . 

The  Hon.  William  M.  Evarts,  LL.D . 

Charles  S.  Fellows,  Efq . 

John  S.  H.  Fogg,  M.D . 

William  F.  Fowle,  Efq . 

Samuel  P.  Fowler,  Efq . 

The  Hon.  Richard  Frothingham,  LL.D . 

James  E.  Gale,  Efq . 

Marcus  D.  Gilman,  Efq . .  .  . 

The  Hon.  John  E.  Godfrey . 

Abner  C.  Goodell,  Jr.,  A.M . 

Elbridge  H.  Gofs,  Efq . 

The  Hon.  Horace  Gray,  LL.D . 

William  W.  Greenough,  A.B . 

Ifaac  J.  Greenwood,  A.M . . 

Charles  H.  Guild,  Efq . 


239 

New  York,  N.Y. 
Charleftown,  Mafs. 
Bofton,  Mafs. 
Providence,  R.I. 
Bofton,  Mafs. 

Albany,  N.Y. 
Worcefter,  Mafs. 
Charleftown,  Mafs. 
Baltimore,  Md. 
Pittfburg,  Pa. 
Morrifania,  N.Y. 
Cambridge,  Mafs. 
Bofton,  Mafs. 

Bofton,  Mafs. 
Melrofe,  Mafs. 
Charleftown,  Mafs. 
New  Haven,  Ct. 
Bofton,  Mafs. 

Bofton,  Mafs. 
Philadelphia,  Pa. 
New  York,  N.Y. 

New  York,  N.Y. 
Chicago,  Ill. 

Bofton,  Mafs. 

Bofton,  Mafs. 
Danvers,  Mafs. 
Charleftown,  Mafs. 
Haverhill,  Mafs. 
Montpelier,  Vt. 
Bangor,  Me. 

Salem,  Mafs. 

Bofton,  Mafs. 

Bofton,  Mafs. 

Bofton,  Mafs. 

New  York,  N.Y. 
Somerville,  Mafs. 


240  The  Prince  Society 

The  Hon.  Robert  S.  Hale,  LL.D . 

C.  Fifke  Harris,  A.M . 

David  Greene  Hafkins,  Jr.,  A.M . 

The  Hon.  Francis  B.  Hayes,  A.M . 

Francis  S.  Hoffman,  Efq . 

James  F.  Hunnewell,  Efq.  . . 

Theodore  Irwin,  Efq . 

William  Porter  Jarvis,  A.M . 

John  S.  Jennefs,  A.B . 

*  Edward  F.  de  Lancey,  Efq . 

William  B.  Lapham,  M.D . 

John  J.  Latting,  A.M . 

Thomas  J.  Lee,  Efq . 

Jofeph  Leonard,  Efq . 

John  A.  Lewis,  Efq . 

William  T.  R.  Marvin,  A.M . 

William  F.  Matchett,  Efq . 

Frederic  W.  G.  May,  Efq . .  . 

The  Rev.  James  H.  Means,  D.D . 

George  H.  Moore,  LL.D . 

The  Hon.  Henry  C.  Murphy . 

The  Rev.  James  De  Normandie,  A.M . 

The  Hon.  James  W.  North . 

George  T.  Paine,  Efq . 

The  Hon.  John  Gorham  Palfrey,  LL.D . 

Daniel  Parifh,  Jr.,  Efq . 

Francis  Parkman,  LL.B . 

Auguftus  T.  Perkins,  A.M . 

The  Rev.  William  Stevens  Perry,  D.D . 

William  C.  Peters,  A.M . 

William  Frederic  Poole,  A.M . 

Capt.  William  Prince,  U.S.A . 

The  Hon.  John  V.  L.  Pruyn,  LL.D . 

Samuel  S.  Purple,  M.D . 

The  Rev.  Alonzo  H.  Quint,  D.D . 

Edward  S.  Rand,  A.M . 


\ 

Elizabethtown,  N.Y. 
Providence,  R.I. 
Cambridge,  Mafs. 
Bofton,  Mafs. 
Philadelphia,  Pa. 
Charleftown,  Mafs. 
Ofwego,  N.Y. 
Bofton,  Mafs. 

New  York,  N.Y. 
New  York,  N.Y. 
Augufta,  Me. 

New  York,  N.Y. 
Bofton,  Mafs. 
Bofton,  Mafs. 
Bofton,  Mafs. 
Bofton,  Mafs. 

Bofton,  Mafs. 
Bofton,  Mafs. 
Bofton,  Mafs. 

New  York,  N.Y. 
Brooklyn,  N.Y. 
Portfmouth,  N.H. 
Augufta,  Me. 
Providence,  R.I. 
Cambridge,  Mafs. 
New  York,  N.Y. 
Bofton,  Mafs. 
Bofton,  Mafs. 
Geneva,  N.Y. 
Bofton,  Mafs. 
Chicago,  Ill. 
Springfield,  Mafs. 
Albany,  N.Y. 

New  York,  N.Y. 
Dover,  N.H. 

Bofton,  Mafs. 


The  Prince  Society.  241 

Edward  S.  Rand,  Jr.,  A.M . Bofton,  Mafs. 

Edward  Afhton  Rollins,  A.M . Great  Falls,  N.H. 

The  Rev.  Carlos  Slafter,  A.M . .  .  Dedham,  Mafs. 

The  Rev.  Edmund  F.  Slafter,  A.M . Bofton,  Mafs. 

Charles  C.  Smith,  Efq . Bofton,  Mafs. 

Samuel  T.  Snow,  Efq . Bofton,  Mafs. 

The  Hon.  Thomas  Spooner . Cincinnati,  Ohio. 

George  Stevens,  Efq . Lowell,  Mafs. 

Edwin  W.  Stoughton,  Efq . New  York,  N.Y. 

The  Hon.  Benj.  F.  Thomas,  LL.D . Bofton,  Mafs. 

John  Wingate  Thornton,  A.M . Bofton,  Mafs. 

William  B.  Towne,  A.M . Milford,  N.H. 

William  B.  Trafk,  Efq . .  .  .  .  Bofton,  Mafs. 

The  Hon.  William  H.  Tuthill . Tipton,  Iowa. 

Charles  W.  Tuttle,  A.M . Bofton,  Mafs. 

George  W.  Wales,  Efq . Bofton,  Mafs. 

Jofeph  B.  Walker,  A.M . Concord,  N.H. 

Mifs  Rachel  Wetherill  .  . . Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Henry  Wheatland,  A.M.,  M.D . Salem,  Mafs. 

Mrs.  William  Wheelwright . London,  Eng. 

William  H.  Whitmore,  A.M . Bofton,  Mafs. 

Henry  Auftin  Whitney,  A.M . Bofton,  Mafs. 

The  Hon.  Marfhall  P.  Wilder . Bofton,  Mafs. 

Henry  Winfor,  Efq . Philadelphia,  Pa. 

The  Hon.  Robert  C.  Winthrop,  LL.D . Bofton,  Mafs. 

Charles  Levi  Woodbury,  Efq . Bofton,  Mafs. 

Afhbel  Woodward,  M.D . Franklin,  Ct. 

LIBRARIES. 

American  Antiquarian  Society . Worcefter,  Mafs. 

Amherft  College  Library . Amherft,  Mafs. 

Bofton  Athenaeum  .  - . Bofton,  Mafs. 

Bofton  Library  Society . Bofton,  Mafs. 

Britifh  Mufeum . London,  Eng. 

Concord  Public  Library . Concord,  Mafs. 

31 


242 


The  Prince  Society. 


Eben  Dale  Reference  Library . Peabody,  Mafs. 

Free  Public  Library . Worcefter,  Mafs. 

Grofvenor  Library . Buffalo,  N.Y. 

Hiftorical  Society  of  Pennfylvania . Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Library  Company  of  Philadelphia . Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Long  Ifland  Hiftorical  Society . Brooklyn,  N.Y. 

Maine  Hiftorical  Society . Brunfwick,  Me. 

Maryland  Hiftorical  Society . Baltimore,  Md. 

Maffachufetts  Hiftorical  Society . Bofton,  Mafs. 

Mercantile  Library . New  York,  N.Y. 

New  England  Hiftoric  Genealogical  Society  .  .  Bofton,  Mafs. 

Newburyport  Public  Library,  Peabody  Fund  .  .  Newburyport,  Mafs. 

Portfmouth  Athenaeum . Portfmouth,  N.H. 

Public  Library  of  the  City  of  Bofton . Bofton,  Mafs. 

Redwood  Library . Newport,  R.I. 

State  Library  of  Maffachufetts . Bofton,  Mafs. 

State  Library  of  New  York . Albany,  N.Y. 

State  Library  of  Rhode  Ifland . Providence,  R.I. 

State  Library  of  Vermont . Montpelier,  Vt. 

Williams  College  Library . Williamftown,  Mafs. 

Yale  College  Library . New  Haven,  Ct. 


PUBLICATIONS  OF  THE  SOCIETY. 


New  England’s  Prospect. 

A  true,  lively  and  experimentall  defcription  of  that  part  of  America ,  commonly  called 
New  England  :  difcovering  the  State  of  that  Countrie,  both  as  it  hands  to  our  new- 
come  EngliJJi  Planters;  and  to  the  old  Natiue  Inhabitants.  By  William  Wood. 
London,  1634.  Preface  by  Charles  Deane,  LL.D. 

The  Hutchinson  Papers. 

A  Collection  of  Original  Papers  relatiue  to  the  Hiftory  of  the  Colony  of  Maffachu- 
fetts-Bay.  Reprinted  from  the  edition  of  1769.  Edited  by  William  H.  Whitmore, 
A.M.,  and  William  S.  Appleton,  A.M.  2  vols. 

John  Dunton’s  Letters  from  New  England. 

Letters  written  from  New  England  A.D.  16S6.  By  John  Dunton  in  which  are 
defcribed  his  voyages  by  Sea,  his  travels  on  land,  and  the  characters  of  his  friends 
and  acquaintances.  Now  firft  publifhed  from  the  Original  Manufcript  in  the  Bodleian 
Library.  Oxford.  Edited  by  William  H.  Whitmore,  A.M. 

The  Andros  Tracts. 

Being  a  Collection  of  Pamphlets  and  Official  Papers  iffued  during  the  period  be¬ 
tween  the  overthrow  of  the  Andros  Government  and  the  eftabliffiment  of  the  fecond 
Charter  of  Maffachufetts.  Reprinted  from  the  original  editions  and  manufcripts. 
With  a  Memoir  of  Sir  Edmund  Andros,  by  the  editor,  William  H.  Whitmore,  A.M. 
3  vols. 

Sir  William  Alexander  and  American  Colonization. 

Including  three  Royal  Charters,  iffued  in  1621,  1625,  1628;  a  TraCt  entitled  an 
Encouragement  to  Colonies,  by  Sir  William  Alexander,  1624 ;  a  Patent,  from  the 
Great  Council  for  New  England,  of  Long  Ifland,  and  a  part  of  the  prefent  State  of 
Maine;  a  Roll  of  the., Knights  Baronets  of  New  Scotland;  writh  a  Memoir  of  Sir 
William  Alexander,  by  the  editor,  the  Rev.  Edmund  F.  Slafter,  A.M. 

John  Wheelwright. 

Including  his  Fafl-day  Sermon,  1637  :  his  Mercurius  Americanus,  1645,  an<^  other 
writings  ;  with  a  paper  on  the  genuineness  of  the  Indian  deed  of  1629,  and  a  Memoir 
by  the  editor,  Charles  H.  Bell,  A.M. 


Note.  —  Communications  for  officers  of  the  Prince  Society  may  be  directed  to 
18  Somerset  Street,  Boston. 


VOLUMES  IN  PREPARATION. 


1.  Captain  John  Mason,  the  founder  of  New  Hamplhire,  including  his  Tradt 
on  Newfoundland,  1620,  and  the  feveral  American  Charters  in  which  he  was  a  Gran¬ 
tee  ;  with  a  Memoir  and  hiltorical  illuftrations  by  Charles  W.  Tuttle,  A.M. 

2.  Sir  Ferdinando  Gorges,  including  his  Tradt  entitled  A  Brief  Narration,  1658, 
American  Charters  granted  to  him,  and  other  papers;  with  hiltorical  illuftrations  and 
a  Memoir  by  the  Rev.  Edmund  F.  Slafter,  A.M. 

3.  Champlain’s  Voyages  to  New  France,  including  the  Voyage  of  1603,  and 
all  contained  in  the  editions  of  1613  and  1619.  Tranllated  into  Englilh  by  Charles 
P.  Otis,  Ph.D.  Edited,  with  a  Memoir  and  hiltorical  illuftrations,  by  the  Rev. 
Edmund  F.  Slafter,  A.M. 

The  tranflation  is  neaitfy  completed.. 

4.  Sir  Humphrey  Gilbert,  including  his  Difcourfe  to  prove  a  Paffage  by  the 
North-Welt  to  Cathaia  and  the  Eaft  Indies;  and  his  Letters  Patent  to  difcover  and 
poffefs  lands  in  North  America,  granted  by  Queen  Elizabeth,  June  11,  1578;  with 
hiltorical  illuftrations  and  a  Memoir  by  Charles  W.  Tuttle,  A.M. 


It  is  the  intention  of  the  Council  to  iffue  at  leaft  one  volume  annually,  but  not 
neceffarily  in  the  order  in  which  they  are  placed  above. 


Boston,  18  Somerset  Street, 

March  30,  1876. 


INDEX. 


A. 

Adams,  Nathaniel,  vi.,  113,  135. 
Alford,  1,  6,  9,  92,  1 16. 

Allen,  Thomas,  80,  81,  82,  83,  84,  85, 

95,  I34,  137,  138,  139- 
Ambros,  Henry,  131,  232,  233. 
Amefbury,  64,  68. 

Anderby,  5. 

Andros,  Sir  Edmund,  130. 
Antinomians,  &c.,  9,  22,  24,  51,  52,  58, 
1 8 1,  189. 

Appleton,  Samuel,  74. 

Afpamabough,  33. 

Afpinwall,  William,  28,  193. 

Atkinfon,  Mary,  230. 

B. 

Backus,  Ifaac,  27,  30,  50. 

Barefoote,  Walter,  70. 

Barlow,  George,  40. 

Batchiler,  Stephen,  55. 

Bates,  George,  36. 

Belknap,  Jeremy,  80,  83,  84,  89,  no, 

n  5,  139,  149- 

Belleau,  63. 


Biddeford,  102,  127. 

Bilfby,  1,  3,  5,  92,  93,  94- 
Bithop,  George,  70. 

Boad,  Henry,  45,  46. 

Bodleian  Library,  60. 

Bonighton,  Richard,  126,  127,  148. 
Bofton,  vii.,  6,  n,  15,  19,  24,  25,  33, 
36,  47,  48,  83,  88,  1 18,  193,  194,  219. 
Bourne,  Edward  E.,  44,  45,  46. 
Bouton,  Nathaniel,  no,  117,  118,  121, 
123,  128,  135. 

Bradbury,  Jacob,  231,  232;  Thomas, 
231,  232,  233  ;  William,  232. 
Braintree,  12,  T4. 

Brinley,  George,  viii. 

Britifh  Mufeum,  60. 

Brook,  Benjamin,  5. 

Bulgar,  Richard,  36,  40,  42. 

Bulkley,  John,  130. 

Burnet,  Gilbert,  50;  William,  135. 
Burroughs,  George,  75. 

Bufwell,  Ifaac,  69 ;  William,  69. 

C. 


Callender,  John,  30,  94. 
Cam,  Mr.,  62. 


Index. 


248 


Cambridge  Synod  of  1637,  26,  27,  52. 
Carr,  Sir  Robert,  67. 

Cartwright,  George,  67. 

Charles  I.,  39,  40,  60. 

Charleftown,  194. 

Chafe,  George  W.,  121. 

Chauncey,  Charles,  27. 

Chefter,  Jofeph  L.,  1. 

Clark,  Elifha,  135  ;  John,  30. 
Coddington,  William,  19,  24,  28. 
Coggefhall,  John,  28,  193. 

Colcord,  Edward,  32,  33,  35,  109,  in. 
Cole,  William,  32,  35,  40. 

Collicott,  Richard,  17,  18. 

Combination,  Exeter,  39,  42,  56. 
Compton,  John,  32,  34. 

Congregational  Library,  viii. 

Copeland,  Lawrence,  32,  35. 

Cotton,  John,  7,  9,  n,  18,  25,  26,  27, 

59,  216. 

Court,  General,  14,  16,  18,  19,  20,  23, 

27,  37,  42,  47,48,  49,  5°,  5L  58,  59, 

60,  72,  74,  76,  129,  192,  216. 

Cram,  John,  40. 

Cranfield,  Edward,  68,  139. 

Crawley,  Thomas,  40. 

Crifpe,  Richard,  63. 

Cromwell,  Oliver,  2,  60,  61,  62,  63. 

D. 

Dalton,  Timothy,  54,  55,  61. 

Dane,  Nathan,  129. 

Danforth,  Samuel,  64 ;  Thomas,  74. 
Davie,  Humphrey,  233. 

Day,  Mr.,  62. 

Dean,  John  Ward,  viii. 

Dearborn,  Godfrey,  40. 

Denifon,  Daniel,  74. 


Douglafs,  William,  88. 

Dover,  39,  136. 

Drake,  Samuel  G.,  vi.,  viii.,  6. 
Dudley,  Jofeph,  74;  Samuel,  109. 
Dyer,  Mary,  197;  William,  195,  197. 


E. 

Earft,  230. 

Eaton,  Mr.,  98  ;  John,  66. 

Eliot,  John,  62,  94. 

Elizabeth,  Queen,  16. 

Elkins,  Henry,  36,  40  ;  Mary,  36. 
Ellis,  George  E.,  27,  151. 

Endicott,  John,  100,  102,  104,  117. 
Exeter,  Falls  of  the  Squamfcot,  24,  31, 

32,  35?  36,  37?  38,  39?  42,  44,  46,  47, 
66,  69,  85,  86,  92,  93,  96,  hi,  122, 
133?  136. 


F. 

Farmer,  John,  vi.,  34;  Mrs.  J.,  viii. 
Faft-day  Sermon,  8,  13,  15,  17,  150, 
1 53-179?  214. 

Fellows,  Samuel,  Sr.,  69. 

Felt,  Jofeph  B.,  17,  19,  30,  52,  151. 
Field,  Darby,  32,  34,  40. 

Fifher,  Daniel,  74. 

Fitch,  Jabez,  87. 

Flood,  John,  232. 

Folfom,  George,  103,  126,  127. 

Force,  Peter,  121. 

Foxcroft,  George,  99. 

French,  Edward,  69;  Jofeph,  69. 
Fretwell,  Ralph,  19. 

Furber,  William,  33,  35. 


Index . 


249 


G. 

“  George,”  The,  104. 

Gibbons,  Ambrofe,  122,  123,  148. 

Gill,  John,  69. 

Gilman,  John,  233. 

Gorges,  Sir  Ferdinando,  44,  45,  124, 
125,  128,  13 1  ;  Thomas,  44,  45. 
Graves,  Thomas,  74. 

Gridley,  Thomas,  195. 

Groom,  Samuel,  14,  17,  25. 

Groffe,  Ifaac,  36. 

H. 

Hall,  Ralph,  40. 

Hammond,  Jofeph,  79,  80. 

Hampton,  54,  55,  56,  57,  5 9>  6L  62,  64, 
67,  69,  72,  1 31. 

Haven,  Samuel  F.,  viii. 

Haverhill,  85. 

Hazard,  Ebenezer,  89,  149. 

Helme,  Chriftopher,  40,  92. 

Higginfon,  John,  27. 

High  Commiflion,  16. 

Hilton,  Edward,  31,  91,  106,  107,  127, 
128,  1 3 1,  148;  Hilton’s  Point,  127, 
128,  148. 

Hiftorical  Magazine,  27,  83,  150. 
Hough,  Atherton,  29. 

Howard,  William,  56. 

Hubbard,  William,  23,  47,  49,  120. 
Hume,  David,  16. 

Hutchinfon,  Anne,  7,  9,  10,  24,  27,  52, 
58,  151,  186,  1 87,  192,  195,  196,  197, 
198,  219  ;  Edward,  6,  192  ;  Mary,  6  ; 
Samuel,  32,  36,  44,  92,  193  ;  Sufanna, 
36,  45  ;  Thomas,  23,  25,  61,  62,  63  ; 
William,  7. 


I 

Ilfley,  John,  69. 

Indian  deed  of  1629,  4,  67,  79-141 
pajjim  j  149. 

Ipfwich,  87. 

J* 

James,  32,  33. 

Jennefs,  John  S.,  126. 

Jones,  Sir  William,  81. 

Joffelyn,  John,  124. 

K. 

Kingerbie,  Thomas,  183. 

Ivingfton,  85. 

Knollys,  Hanferd,  6. 

✓ 

L. 

Laconia,  122,  123,  124,  126,  148. 
Lawfon,  Chriftopher,  40,  92. 

Leverett,  John,  71. 

Levett,  Chriftopher,  1 16,  120. 

Levitt,  Thomas,  40,  79,  92,  144,  147. 
Littlefield,  Edmund,  40,  44;  John,  46. 
Londonderry,  85. 

Lyde,  Edward,  230. 

M. 

MacGregor,  James,  85. 

Maine,  43,  45,  79,  85,  102,  123,  124, 
136. 


32 


250 


Index. 


Marfhall,  Chriftopher,  36 ;  Thomas, 
194. 

Marfton,  William,  56. 

Mafon,  Ann,  124;  Hugh,  74;  John, 
3  8,67,80,  124,  125,  128,  131,  137; 
Robert,  113,  114,  136,  139. 

Mafonia,  123. 

Maffachufetts,  30,  #37,  39,  40,  42,  47, 
48,  50,  51,  58,  61,  67,  77,  79,  89,  92, 
94,  97,  100,  101,  103,  104,  108,  IIO, 
116,  1 17,  II9>  I22,  !36,  143)  1 45?  150. 

Maffachufetts  Hiftorical  Society,  viii., 
1 50. 

Mather,  Cotton,  2,  59,  60,  80,  83,  89, 
1 14. 

Mathews,  Francis,  40. 

Maverick,  Mary,  230  ;  Samuel,  67. 

Mercurius  Americanus,  32,  52,  53,  151, 
181-228. 

Merrimac,  31,  33,  34,  67,  112,  117,  128, 
144. 

Minge,  230. 

Mingy,  Jeffrey,  56. 

Miftonobite,  147. 

Moody,  Jofhua,  68. 

Moore,  George  H.,  25. 

Morrill,  Widow,  65. 

Morris,  Lenora,  36 ;  Richard,  36,  40. 

Morton,  Thomas,  121. 

Moulton,  John,  56  ;  William,  56. 

Mount  Wollafton,  12,  13,  24,  32,  51, 
191. 

Mumby,  1,  230. 


N. 

Nantafket,  97. 
Naffau,  Count,  192. 
Naumkeag,  118. 


Neal,  Daniel,  16;  Walter,  122,  128, 
148. 

Needham,  Nicholas,  32,  33,  34,  35,  40, 
44. 

Newcomin,  230. 

New  England  Hiftoric,  Genealogical 
Society,  vi.,  vii.,  viii. 

New  Hampfliire,  30,  38,  42,  67,  79,  80, 
82,  85,  92,  94,  96,  107,  1 14,  122,  123, 
124,  131,  136,  137,  138,  139. 

New  Hampfliire  Hiftorical  Society,  88. 

Newichwanick,  79,  124,  143,  144,  146. 

New  Somerfetfhire,  124. 

Newtown  (Cambridge),  32. 

Nicholls,  Richard,  67. 

Norfolk,  69,  1 31,  229. 

Notes  and  Queries,  60. 

Nowell,  Mr.,  98. 

O. 

Ogunquit,  44,  45,  231. 

Oldham,  John,  97,  98,  99,  100,  101,  102, 
103,  104,  147. 

Oyfter  River,  33,  34,  112. 

P. 

Palfrey,  John  G.,  14. 

Palmer,  Sir  Geoffrey,  81. 

Panoplift,  150. 

Pafcataqua,  30,  32,  33,  37,  38,  39,  42, 
44,  67,  105,  106,  107,  1 13,  124,  128, 
136,  143,  144,  145,  228. 

Paffaconaway,  4,  79,  109,  119,  120,  121, 
143,  146,  147. 

Paffequo,  121. 

Penacook,  79,  119,  120,  121,  143,  146. 


Index. 


25  1 


Pentucket,  79,  143,  144,  146. 

Pequots,  191,  219. 

Pettit,  Thomas,  40. 

Pike,  Robert,  70,  71,  72,  73,  76. 
Planter’s  Plea,  105. 

Plumer,  William,  vi. 

Plymouth,  97,  106;  Council  of,  117, 
125,  126,  13 1,  137. 

Pormort,  Philemon,  36,  40,  42. 
Portfmouth,  68,  82,  87,  113,  135. 
Potter,  Chandler  E.,  vi.,  112,  149. 
Price,  John,  232. 

Pulfifer,  David,  viii. 

Pummadockyon,  33. 


Q. 

Oueen  in  Council,  81,  82,  83,  140. 
Quincy,  12. 

Quint,  Alonzo  H.,  83. 


R. 

Randolph,  Edward,  1 13. 

Rawlinfon,  Thomas,  70. 

Read,  Robert,  40. 

Remonttrance,  20. 

Reyner,  John,  70. 

Rhode  Ifland,  30,  94. 

Ring,  Robert,  65. 

Rifhworth,  Edward,  40,  42,  44,  45,  92, 
231,  232. 

Roberts,  Ephraim,  85. 

Roby,  Henry,  40. 

Rockingham,  85,  112,  149. 

Rowls,  79,  143,  1 46,  147. 

Roxbury,  32,  52. 


Runawit,  79,  hi,  143,  146,  147. 
Ruobone,  George,  40. 
Rutherford,  Samuel,  58,  59. 


S. 

• 

Saco,  45,  126,  127,  148. 

Saggahew,  121. 

Saleby,  1. 

Salem,  69,  104,  106,  117,  131. 

Salifbury,  64,  65,  68,  69,  70,  73,  74,  75, 
229. 

Saltonftall,  Nathaniel,  233. 

Sanborn,  William,  56. 

Savage,  James,  vi.,  151  ;  Thomas,  74. 

Savage’s  edition  of  Winthrop’s  Hif- 
tory,  9,  11,  23,  27,  36,  37,  38,  39,  49, 
51,  60,  96,  105,  106,  108,  109,  no, 
1 16, T 18,  122,  123,  126,  127,  128,  129. 

Scottow,  Jofhua,  118. 

Severance,  John,  69. 

Sharp,  Samuel,  97,  104,  105,  106,  107, 
147- 

Shoals,  I  ties  of,  126,  144. 

Short  Story,  18,  22,  24,  26.  52,  53,  58, 
185,  207. 

Sibley,  John  Langdon,  vii. 

Slafter,  Edmund  F.,  vii.,  60. 

Smith,  Jeremiah,  131  ;  Robert,  40; 
Smith  v.  Wadleigh,  112. 

Soward,  Robert,  40. 

Spencer,  William,  17,  18. 

Sprague,  William  B.,  2. 

Squamfcot,  31,  106,  107,  143,  145,  146. 

Stevens,  John,  Sr.,  69. 

Storre,  Auguttine,  32,  33,  34,  40,  79, 
92,  144,  147  ;  Marie,  3  ;  Thomas,  3. 

Story,  Charles,  138. 


252 


Index 


Stoughton,  Ifrael,  29. 

Stratton,  44. 

Strawberry-bank  (Portfmoutli),  31. 

T. 

Tarrateens,  87,  88, '116,  143. 
Thompfon,  David,  91. 

Thornton,  J.  Wingate,  vii.,  52. 

Tuttle,  Charles  W.,  123. 

U. 

Underhill,  John,  34,  191. 

Ufher,  John,  83. 

V. 

Vane,  Henry,  9,  10,  11,  14,  19,  22,  23, 
24,  25,  60,  61,  63,  219,  227. 

ValTall,  Samuel,  98. 

Vaughan,  George,  83,  114,  122,  123, 
148  ;  William,  148. 

Ven,  Captain,  98. 

Vines,  Richard,  45,  102,  103,  126,  127, 
148. 

Vinton,  John  A.,  vi.,  52. 

W. 

Wadargafcom,  147. 

Walderne,  Richard,  70,  136. 

Waldron,  Richard,  80,  81,  83,  134,  135, 
136,  137,  138,  139 ,  HO- 
Walker,  Samuel,  40. 

Wall,  James,  32,  35,  40. 


Walton,  George,  40. 

Warded,  Thomas,  36,  40 ;  William,  36, 
40. 

Watohantowet,  33,  34,  113. 

Wehanownowit,  32,  33,  37,  143,  146, 
147,  148. 

Weld,  Thomas,  26,  52,  53,  59,  181,  209, 
228. 

Wells,  44,  45,  46,  48,  5 1,  53,  54,  56,  57, 
69,  85,  231. 

Wenbourne,  William,  40. 

Wentworth,  William,  40,  42,  79,  92, 
144,  147. 

Wheelwright,  John,  birth,  parentage, 
education,  1,2;  marriage,  profeffion, 
3  ;  puritanic  tendencies,  4 ;  purchafe 
of  American  lands,  4;  is  filenced 
for  non-conformity,  5  ;  marries  again 
and  emigrates  to  New  England,  6 ; 
Anne  Hutchinfon  and  religious  dif¬ 
ferences  in  Maffachufetts,  7,  8;  Tides 
with  Antinomians,  9  ;  Henry  Vane, 
10;  propofed  as  fecond  teacher  of 
Bofton  church,  1 1 ;  affigned  to  Mount 

•  Wollaflon,  12  ;  Faft-day  Sermon,  13  ; 
fummoned  before  General  Court,  15; 
examination,  16,  17  ;  found  guilty  of 
fedition  and  contempt,  18  ;  propofal 
to  filence,  19;  remonftrance  of  Bof¬ 
ton  church,  20-22  ;  defeat  of  Vane, 
23  ;  paper  warfare,  24 ;  fynod  of 
1637,  26;  fpecial  election  of  depu¬ 
ties,  27;  friends  expelled  from  Gen¬ 
eral  Court,  fentence  of  banithment, 
28  ;  followers  punifhed,  29  ;  invited 
to  Rhode  Ifland,  30  ;  proceeds  to 
Falls  of  Squamfcot,  31  ;  deeds  from 
Indian  Sagamores,  32,  33  ;  founds 
Exeter,  34 ;  divilion  of  lands,  35  ; 
gathers  church,  36  ;  jealoufy  of  Maf- 


Index 


253 


fachufetts,  37  ;  conflicting  claims  to 
Winicowet,  38  ;  Exeter  Combination, 
39,  40;  laws,  41,  42;  New  Hamp- 
fhire  towns  fubmit  to  Maffachufetts, 
43  ;  goes  to  Wells,  44,  45  ;  estab- 
lifhes  church,  46 ;  vifits  Maffachu¬ 
fetts,  48 ;  letters  to  General  Court, 
49,  50 ;  fentence  of  banifhment  re¬ 
mitted,  51  ;  Short  Story,  52;  Mer- 
curius  Americanus,  53 ;  invited  to 
Hampton,  54 ;  removes  and  fettles 
there,  55-57  ;  Rutherford’s  ftriCtures 
upon,  58  ;  adlion  of  General  Court, 
59 ;  vindication,  59,  60 ;  fails  for 
England,  61  ;  pofition  there,  62,  63  ; 
returns  and  fettles  in  Salifbury,  64  ; 
life  there,  65-69;  difficulty  with  Pike, 
70-73  ;  adjuftment,  74 ;  death,  75  ; 
character,  76-78  ;  will  of,  229-233. 

Wheelwright,  Catharine,  5  ;  Col.  John, 
85,  86,  87  ;  Mary,  35,  36;  Robert,  1; 
Samuel,  230,  231,  232;  William,  5. 


Whetcombe,  Mr.,  98. 

White,  John,  98,  99,  105,  106;  Mary, 
231. 

Whiton,  John  M.,  vi. 

Wiggin,  Thomas,  127,  148. 

Wight,  Thomas,  40,  79,  144,  147. 
Williamfon,  William  D.,  80,  86,  126. 
Wilfon,  John,  9, 1 1,  23, 24,  25  ;  Thomas, 
40. 

Winicowet  (Hampton),  37,  38. 
Winnington,  Sir  Francis,  81. 

Winfley,  Ephraim,  69. 

Winthrop,  John,  9,  10,  11,  14,  15,  22, 
23,  25,  31,  47,  49,  50,  51,  52,  76,  77, 
121,  193,  199. 

Wood,  William,  120. 

Worcefter,  William,  71. 

Y. 

York,  46,  79,  80,  82,  85,  87,  231. 
Young,  Alexander,  99. 


M 


K 


^ublicattous  of  ti)f  prince  ^ocitt!>. 


JOHN  WHEELWRIGHT. 


Council  of  tlje  prince  ^octetri 

1876. 


JOHN  WARD  DEAN. 

JOHN  WINGATE  THORNTON. 
EDMUND  F.  SLAFTER. 
WILLIAM  B.  TRASK. 

CHARLES  H.  BELL. 

CHARLES  W.  TUTTLE. 

DAVID  GREENE  HASKINS,  Jr. 
ELBRIDGE  H.  GOSS. 


c 


I 


# 


. 


« 


Date  Due 


.mjei  i  'ue 

au#**** m 

iPjMyfrtfftr 

ffUPwmaaii 

2,tfpww» 

"  . . "fT^ 

iWW'  i*  " 

ns?- 

#•■  •  <?*- '  j 

ttcnra*  • 

* 

If  In 


1  .ixiv''iv-  k>-  M 

ftjfli  i 

ii  yfw?L  AjSuJy 

vy 

V 

;-  i; 

IiC/i 

fc.  ft  *  i  v_/  1  1 

i  ”  iw 

^ 

i\  jVk  ji\  u  | 

1  ^  rwi  ▼ 

OS/ifg  W 

m 

n 

\  i  j  .  ',  \  \ 

ij  jj 

1  w  w 

W  ;■  -< ;  ■  ■>  . ;  .1 

g  ^  yj  V 

v 

i  A  A ,  ^  v.yy 

^  y  y  v  4  w  * . 

MlTJM 


y  v  v  v  vi*  vivmjwmi 


\mmWl 

fey;M 

IBli 

m 

1 

l&M 

HP 

OW 

UWV' 

,:'  r  ll  '-Ii  Jl-  A  -  ii  Jiv  ^ 

SfS 

2®ig 

yUW^WvW 

yyy  w. 

,  -I  ,1  M 

;wVW 

J  \  J  M 

W  _ 

r  ^  ^ 

/W-V 

j  v  y v  v VV 

,  i  vfV/ 1 A/lwl'i 

Mq 

STOMJyn 

w 

,i  ;;  ?,  ,.  ii  A  iVu 

.vV:v.yy, 

/.vjiV 

My 

Qyvlw© 

"jd'C/M  wi;  w  V  V  i  'J  \jij\ 

My 

■vJwVvuyywK;..y 

w  V  v  V  * 

-  0  V  o-  > 

<  M  &  M  u  W 

V-  V  V 

'  V  V 

W  Y  v  vV' 

v'yyv/yyy^vyvy 

<mwwu 

UyUk 

mV 

m 

l-^ Aril Lyill  4 w ivwi! 

i  a  £ 

iTiAivi 

i  i  lviv  vMwpoyPw 
Mu  i  li  i Jt®1- 

'li^K 

mKmmnLll  L 

SHSE 

- A  SU^’KSfr  A  W/k 

Library 


Theological  Seminary-Speer 


Princeton 


1  1012  01012  6938 


